More Polished game, Less appealing Concept

[KELLERaug]

I have seen a lot of talk since the first release of this game on Early Access on both sides of the fence, the first half saying the game is terrible, the second half saying the game is better, and deriding the first half for wanting a "carbon copy of the first game". The truth as you can imagine is somewhere in the middle, and highly subjective. As a game designer, on the outside of the development bubble of this game, I am going to try to break down in design terms, why players (myself included) feel this game differs so greatly from the first, when on a surface level, the two games are incredibly similar. What it really comes down to is, the devs wanting to release a more polished product. That sounds good on the face of it, but it has had some knock-on effects that you may, or may not have noticed.

Polish over Progress

The shrinking of Biomes
The original subnautica was defined by its deceptively open map, its layered crafting and exploration, and an overall sense of the unknown.
The open spaces into the game lead to a myriad of technical issues on the client side and dev side, so when the time game to start a new project, the devs took the most direct route to solving the issue, which was to focus on smaller, denser biomes. The more self contained biomes would help eliminate the pop-in issues, and voila, simple resolution to the problem, right? Well, sort of. Part of the benefit of subnautica's original map was that it was too large, and too spread out for the vast majority of players to develop a mental model of it in there head. This made it easy to get lost, turned around, and so forth. This is one of those incidental gameplay elements that can be mistaken for inconvenience, when really, it is one of the major factors aiding in the player's immersion. The shrinking of biomes has made it MUCH easier for a player to make a mental map of the games different areas, and this makes traversing them, feel more like traversing a game world, and less like traversing the ocean. For those players that just enjoy engaging with the story, or who just enjoy building things, this will be more of a benefit than a hindrance, but for those players who were hooked in first and foremost by the previous games feel and atmosphere, this is terminal loss. I legitimately believe that the pop-in and performance issues were the lesser evil in this case, and I wish that the technical end of the team would have focused on finding a tiered draw distance solution that would have allowed the game to retain more of it's previous scale, but I do understand why they made the choices they did.

Streamlining out decisionmaking

Another major point of contention is the loss of the cyclops in the game, and the streamlining of vehicles in general. The sea truck is a very brilliant streamlined solution to vehicles, and I would have nothing but praise for it, if not for the knock-on effect that it has on the other elements of the game. On the surface, the sea truck is the perfect solution. A universal vehicle. What could be better? It can do anything! The problem is the fact that this eliminates the decision of a player as to what is the right tool for the job, prevents the vehicle from having any sort of defined feel or purpose, and adds a significant amount of busy work to many expeditions while you swap in and out modules. The added mass of modules and compartments reduce the nimbleness of the sea truck to the point of being both unwieldy and un-fun to pilot, and ultimately you end up with a vehicle system that is less satisfying, and less tailored to the game, than the previous games vehicle system. The idea of the truck was to allow for a cargo vehicle, smaller than the cyclops, that could fit in the smaller biomes, but unfortunately while it is smaller in girth, it can approach spaghetti levels of length if you want to use the vehicle to haul large amounts. It is extremely annoying to pilot the vehicle in the games smaller biomes in any configuration using more than 4 or so modules (your mileage may vary of course) and this is ultimately the impression that some players end up dissatisfied with. A better solution on paper, but a more clumsy and less interesting solution in practice.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Below Zero is a more polished game than Subnautica was, but it is also a less unique experience. Very much like sanding a sculpture or a carving, the dev team sanded off the jagged edges, but they sanded off all the detail too. Mind you, if I were on the team at the time the design was being decided on, I wouldve voted for the exact solutions the team went with, because as I have said, on paper, they ARE the better solutions. This was one of those mistakes you could only see once youd already made them. I do wish however that the team had recognized these issues earlier in the dev cycle for the game, and pivoted to account for them. But, at this point, that would require an absurd amount of work that I am all but certain the team can not afford to do (they have made the majority of the money they are going to make on this game, so the sooner they can push it to 1.0, the better for them). My goal here wasnt to be overly critical, it was just to add some substance to the criticisms the game has received, beyond just saying "I dont like it". Apologies for the sloppy composition of this whole thing. usually I do videos rather than essays.

[Paeyvn]

From my experience playing both the first one and this, I don't think I could have put my thoughts into any better words than this. You hit on the two biggest things I didn't like compared to game one. I personally mourn the loss of the Cyclops heavily as I really enjoyed its implementation and use in the previous game. The Seatruck just does not offer an experience near as close. The feel of swapping between all of the cameras to pilot the Cyclops effectively was actually fun to me and the ability to construct what you need inside without making it more unwieldy was wonderful. The Seatruck feels far more constrictive despite its modularity because of the lack of customization of builds and the progressively more unwieldy length.

The smaller biomes also felt far less satisfying to me than the biomes in the first game. It doesn't feel like there's as much exploration really, and more just "okay, I see everything already, time to move on".

I also really missed the wrecks from the first game, exploring them to gradually find the tools you needed to solve problems, and they were fun to cut through. In BZ there are only 2 wrecks that offer an experience close to that, and they felt fairly lackluster compared to what they could be.

[Malloc]

i kinda agree with this. I only started playing a couple days ago and the while the smaller biomes are just so so to me the sea truck is just not useful. claims to be as fast as a seamoth but feels slow and that's before you add trailers to it to slow it down even with the speed upgrade its still slow.

[The Big Brzezinski]

The application of this same formula to the narrative has caused similar unintended consequences.

In Subnautica, Ryley's journey is ingrained in the player's gameplay choices an actions. The experience an immersed player is having is Ryley's story. Bits of exposition found in the ruins servers triple duty as gameplay clues, story beats, and mood setters.

This complicated web of mechanical and narrative progression was severely pruned in BZ. Progression was bifurcated into unstructured exploration for new mechanical capabilities and a linear waypoint hunt for story exposition in the form of voice recordings. On paper, this should give players more freedom to focus on the content they primarily enjoy. The actual net result is that BZ's core gameplay and story simply have nothing to do with each other. Exploring for new equipment and materials feels more like an unrelated sidequest for a new powers than the actions of a desperate survivor searching for resources to solve a problem. The experience of following the waypoints that take you through the main story combines the worst aspects of fetch quests and a bad walking simulator, having you perform mindless busywork in exchange for audio exposition. This poor presentation is on top of the general illogical dysfunction of the plot itself.

It's probably true in an objective sense that Below Zero is the better piece of software and demonstration of technical proficiency. However, as a game, experience, and work of artistic and creative expression. BZ simply cannot compare to Subnautica.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by The Big Brzezinski:

It's probably true in an objective sense that Below Zero is the better piece of software and demonstration of technical proficiency.

Is it? What parts of BZ are technically better than in Subnautica?

I agree with the rest of your assessment.

[stiv]

Originally posted by KELLERaug:

Very much like sanding a sculpture or a carving, the dev team sanded off the jagged edges, but they sanded off all the detail too.

It's like painting a picture and removing all brush stroke texture and imperfections that add soul to it.
You get a smoother image but you lose personality.

And I think that's part of the problem, I feel like BZ has little personality. It has been worked on, adjusted, balanced, and thought-out so much that its personality became a blend of everything the game tried to be at some point, but ended up being neither.

Appreciate your thoughts, as a developer, on the subject (if you really are one). And really interesting discussions can come from that. But at the end, for the casual player, does it really matter? For any given product, what happens during its development is irrelevant, the real deal is the final product. The product that hits the shelves is what matters.

[Rushi]

Agreed. One thing I immediately noticed were the biomes. They all look nice sure, the tree spires are amazing, but they're all just heat and rocks. Purple vents, thermal spires and tree spires, all of their unique traits are all just jagged rocks and heat vents. They're well-made, but they lack diversity and soul.

[rikwes66]

I really hate the seatruck . The idea is nice but in practice it's one of the most annoying vehicles I have encountered in gaming . It's waaaay too vulnerable , gets stuck in scenery constantly ( even without any modules attached ) and is very slow . It's also a distinct grind to get the modules .

what I liked about original game was the flow : you got your hands on seamoth exactly when it became very useful , same with prawn suit and cyclops ,likewise with the upgrades . It was almost a natural progression . In the sequel everything is dumped all over the place . I know it won't happen but devs would be wise to add seamoth to game ( cyclops would be of no use whatsoever though , due to size of the biomes ) .

I also distinctly dislike the land based component ( half of the time you don't see anything and travel is tedious ) .What made original so special was the vast underwater biomes and the sense of exploration .There's plenty of land based survival games out there which are waaaay better than this one ( the forest, green hell to name but two)

The more I play this one , the more I'm thinking devs don't really grasp WHY the original was lauded so much

[Dremor]

The Seatruck is indeed vulnerable... until you reach the Perimeter Defense upgrade, which makes it more or less invulnerable, even to Leviathans. An upgrade you get for free during the scenario. Once you get it, the feeling of danger disappears. You don't even have to wait for a Leviathan to move, you just go straight and activate the module every time it gets even slightly close to you.

[KELLERaug]

Appreciate your thoughts, as a developer, on the subject (if you really are one). And really interesting discussions can come from that. But at the end, for the casual player, does it really matter? For any given product, what happens during its development is irrelevant, the real deal is the final product. The product that hits the shelves is what matters.

I'm a designer more so. I've been making mods, and small games for most of my life. Mods make up the vast majority of my experience, but In any case; the development of the game is not irrelevant at all. This discussion is not irrelevant at all. The team that made these games is big on listening to feedback, I just thought BZ may have been an overcorrection to feedback given to the original Subnautica. So I wanted to give the most salient, important points, in breaking down the feedback on BZ that I've seen from other players, And from myself. Partly in the hopes that it would be useful, and partly in the hopes that giving substance to some of the critique would make discussion around them less name-calley and caustic. Probably won't achieve either goal, but I know for a fact that the director of the original subnautica watched my video review on the first Subnautica (because he commented on it), so I figured, why not?

[KELLERaug]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Originally posted by The Big Brzezinski:

It's probably true in an objective sense that Below Zero is the better piece of software and demonstration of technical proficiency.

Is it? What parts of BZ are technically better than in Subnautica?

I agree with the rest of your assessment.

- the game runs better
- game has a larger feature set
- more friendly to beginners
- less technical issues ( including but not limited to the pop-in in my initial post)

I mean, I get it. I prefer the original too, but there ARE things this game is better at than the original. Whether they were worth the sacrifice? That's up to you. But a subnautica with the feel of the original, but the technical prowess of this game would be the best of both worlds. Id even be okay with the starting zone being a smaller biome, that opens up to the wide open ocean.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by KELLERaug:

Originally posted by Andreas:

Is it? What parts of BZ are technically better than in Subnautica?

I agree with the rest of your assessment.

- the game runs better
- game has a larger feature set
- more friendly to beginners
- less technical issues ( including but not limited to the pop-in in my initial post)

As you said, the better performance seems to mainly be a result of the smaller world and slower speeds. So I'm not sure I'd count that as technically superior. It's just different trade-offs.
The other points are also not what I think about when evaluating technical quality.

So, no, not measurably technically better in my opinion.
We could argue about the artwork being better; but then, it's quite difficult to compare completely different assets. And the overall presentation is different, but not obviously better either

Personally, while happily acknowledging that is has some good parts, I'm quite disappointed with the game at large.

[rikwes66]

mind you : with all the criticism we have , it's still an above average game ( it's just we compare it with original) . I think opinions would be entirely different if the first game had never existed .... it's definitely worth the money

[VforVeranda]

To OP: As somebody that loved the first and decided not to get the second out of the fear that, based on reviews, it would taint my memories of Subnautica... this is an interesting discussion and I must commend you on your approach.

I still think I would rather not "dive in" so to speak, but it's nice to have a bit more perspective on the game. Thank you.

[Rushi]

Originally posted by rikwes66:

mind you : with all the criticism we have , it's still an above average game ( it's just we compare it with original) . I think opinions would be entirely different if the first game had never existed .... it's definitely worth the money

Eh, I'd argue its just average at best. Even with SN1 out of the picture, the gameplay is still boring for the most part, the story is still garbage and despite being a few weeks from release it still feels very unfinished.

[KELLERaug]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Originally posted by KELLERaug:

- the game runs better
- game has a larger feature set
- more friendly to beginners
- less technical issues ( including but not limited to the pop-in in my initial post)

As you said, the better performance seems to mainly be a result of the smaller world and slower speeds. So I'm not sure I'd count that as technically superior. It's just different trade-offs.
The other points are also not what I think about when evaluating technical quality.

So, no, not measurably technically better in my opinion.
We could argue about the artwork being better; but then, it's quite difficult to compare completely different assets. And the overall presentation is different, but not obviously better either

Personally, while happily acknowledging that is has some good parts, I'm quite disappointed with the game at large.

When you're making a game, you don't usually have the luxury of differentiating between workaround, and resolution. You try to focus on what you have control over. You could entrust the job to your technology guys, the ones that do the really hard work of building shaders, codebase stuff, etc. To do a job there's no guarantee could be done, or you could enact a workaround that (on paper) fixes multiple issues you had received feedback on.

But even outside the performance thing (performance is more consistent in comparable situations like looking at the surface on an empty horizon ), but the game also has new / updated shaders, and post processing work, and I also believe that water deformation is handled differently. In any case, I think it sends the wrong message to treat the game as if it didn't do anything right. I do vastly prefer the original, same as you. I just want to paint an accurate and less biased picture of exactly what went wrong here, and what are the main issues negatively impacting the fanbases view of the game, in a way that is simple, and actionable. If you have other criticisms that are of a similar level of importance to the biome size, and the vehicle streamlining, I would legitimately like to hear it, so we as a community can bring together a real tangible list of what we want, either in an update (extremely unlikely) or a sequel.