Showing 1,301-1,320 of 2,925 entries
Oct 22, 2018 @ 9:32am
In topic Teleporters
Is this true? The transporter can take minutes to get you somewhere? Something has to be wrong.
From the mountain island to the floating island takes me a few seconds. 15 second tops, but I'm really just guessing as I've never bothered to time it.
My memory isn't very good but it seems that stable was faster than experimental.
Oct 21, 2018 @ 1:28pm
In topic Infinity ruined Bioshocks legacy
Bad Steam that day. I'll leave them for you as I decided that they wouldn't post at all.


You still act like a drug addict. :steammocking:
60-70%? It's more than that for me. I'm always looking for material and only go out there because I need materials to build things.
The seamoth is a mobile air tank.
The prawn is a big mining machine.
The cyclops is a convenient way to transport the mining machine.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 6:18pm
In topic Experimental version
That is one of the few things that is always there along with the crashfish. Sometimes the sulpher doesn't show but it is there.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 4:41pm
In topic Infinity ruined Bioshocks legacy
Originally posted by LHGreen:
Originally posted by Gurkhal:
I'm with you. My Bioschock 1 was bugged so I wouldn't finish it while Bioschock 2 was just boring. Infinite trumps them all with being able to be played, having a nice aesthetic and having a story and characters that I could and did care about.

That sucks about it being that buggy. But that's been true of all the Bioshock games, including this one. Most of the threads here are to do with other people having terrible issues themselves, rather than discussions of the game's quality or it's ostensibly mind-bending (not actually mind-bending, just murky and convoluted) plot, narrative, and ending. So your experience with bugs may not be accurately indicative of the overall quality of either game, and could be tainting your opinion. Personally, I try to determine how common a problem glitchiness is in a game, regardless of whether I've experienced it myself or not, before I judge said game based on it. Hope you get to play BS1 with fewer bugs at some point, to see, and hopefully understand, just how good and fantastically layered it really is. It's alive in a way that Bioshock Infinite just isn't. Although in all fairness, this game sometimes tries to be, and almost succeeds on occasion.

As for the aesthetic, it wasn't as good as what they'd originally wanted and tried to do before technology limitations forced them to scrap that and go in another direction, imo. That happened to a lot of this game, which is part of why it took so long to get it done; they just kept scrapping things, some of which they'd been working on for years, and more than half of the game is just gone. Not because it was bad (from what I can tell, most of it was at least as good as, or better than, what we got) but just because it was taking them too long or they hit a snag they couldn't work out and anything that wasn't deemed absolutely perfect (by whatever obscure, arbitrary metric was used to judge that) wasn't allowed in the final product, no matter how good it was. That seems to be one of the numerous key problems they had during the very troubled development period. They spent so much effort and put so much focus on making it "perfect", that they neglected putting nearly as much effort and focus into making it good. They thought those two things were the same, although they really aren't, and this game is an excellent example of that. But unlike some of the other key problems they had in development, this one never got addressed, so it shows up all over and throughout the game.

Anyway, setting that tangent aside, that last point you made caught my eye. I agree that the characters were fairly interesting. Enough to get emotionally involved in, for the most part. But the story, not so much, or rather not in as absolute a way. I cared about what was happening, but they kept switching around so much that eventually I just gave up on giving a flying ♥♥♥♥. Did you happen to notice that you have little, if any, effect on the overall events of that game? Oh, sure, the people you kill and their families are (ostensibly) impacted by what you do, at least until all the weird reality-traversing effectively brings them back as semi-merged screaming piles of existential horror and dread, but even that doesn't seem to matter much. A parallel version of those guys always pops up, sometimes even in the same reality where you already killed them. But as for the events, neither you nor Elizabeth ever actually change the reality of the situation, you both just run away to a different reality that more closely suits whatever your current purposes are. Which ties into their respective characters and personalities, but causes some rather glaring story issues. Even at the end, when Elizabeth finally does anything remotely close to her godlike potential of altering reality, instead of just running from it and going to a different one, it doesn't exactly work out too well.

It's like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and vice versa. So the characters' stories and the events' stories weren't cohesive when they needed to be, and clashed when they shouldn't have (which is another big problem in this game, imo. It reminds me of Mighty No. 9 in that respect. It's like someone took two or more great games, tried to mash them together without any prior attempt to make them compatible, and ended up with something at best half as good as either). And in this case, the result is that the different storylines you run into just get dropped, abandoned, and forgotten about, along with the themes and issues that were brought up with them. You simply ditch what's happening and move on to the next thing, JUST as things are getting good, and you never go back. There's no real conclusion to any of it, and although I'm still a little curious as to what happened in the original (or at least, the first viewed) version of reality you start out in, the reason they're able to just throw it away like that in the first place is because none of it really matters to the main or meta narrative anyway. Unlike in BS1, the source of the conflict genuinely does not matter to the game, it could be literally ♥♥♥♥ing anything. That's why it goes through the various subtle, thematic shifts (racism, classism, sectarianism, jingoism, etc.) that it does throughout the game, because it's ultimately pointless. Just background filler, that I suspect was put in to satisfy the people who wanted to tackle those issues, without having to sacrifice the different issues other people wanted to tackle, or change what those at the top making the decisions wanted the game to actually be about.

It's pandering, but not to the audience, as the OP and some others in here believe. Rather, it's to those working on it who wanted their own creative voices to be represented that the pandering was directed towards. That's how I see it, anyway. The only reason they picked the themes they did is because they're problems that the U.S. has always had and they were becoming increasing topical at the time. If that game had been held back even longer and released between a couple years ago and now, sexism would have been a much larger factor, not because it mattered to the game or because they had any message or statement or ideology they wanted to express, but just 'cause. It's popular, therefore it will sell, so put it in. Anyone working on the game who honestly thought it was important to the product was allowed to labor under their delusions. Quite manipulative, really. And a bit self-sabotaging, too. Take, for example, them bringing up the topic of racism, laying the issue out, but then just dismissing it all with a handwave and continuing on like that part of the game never happened. While it does minimalize racism itself and express how stupid, trivial, and pointless both it and the thinking behind it are, it also minimalizes the struggle against racism, and defeats whatever purpose the theme was intended to have.

And that's what happens with the vast majority of the narratives and themes in this game. Their meaning is annihilated, reduced to nothing, as the true theme (which was already stated and explained in previous, semi-recent posts) of "the artist (or in this case, perhaps the producer/supplier of the art) is almighty and the audience (and consequently, the consumer/customer) doesn't ♥♥♥♥ing matter one whit or one ♥♥♥♥" comes forth and makes itself known. It is very specifically expressed that you, the player (what you choose, what you do, how you play, and by extension what you feel or think about what you're playing), are totally unimportant to the game or anything to do with it. Including those who made it, would be the obvious implication. So it really is a giant middle finger to anyone who plays it, especially if they actually bought it. Needless to say, I didn't appreciate paying those ♥♥♥♥wads to tell me that.

Of course, sales DO matter, and those depend on the audience/consumer/customer/etc., as it turns out. So, judging from the subsequent closure of the whole studio due to sales supposedly being less than expected, it seems like they were hoisted by their own metaphor....

What drugs are you on?

I'm guessing meth.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 4:38pm
In topic Infinity ruined Bioshocks legacy
Originally posted by LHGreen:
Originally posted by Gurkhal:
I'm with you. My Bioschock 1 was bugged so I wouldn't finish it while Bioschock 2 was just boring. Infinite trumps them all with being able to be played, having a nice aesthetic and having a story and characters that I could and did care about.

That sucks about it being that buggy. But that's been true of all the Bioshock games, including this one. Most of the threads here are to do with other people having terrible issues themselves, rather than discussions of the game's quality or it's ostensibly mind-bending (not actually mind-bending, just murky and convoluted) plot, narrative, and ending. So your experience with bugs may not be accurately indicative of the overall quality of either game, and could be tainting your opinion. Personally, I try to determine how common a problem glitchiness is in a game, regardless of whether I've experienced it myself or not, before I judge said game based on it. Hope you get to play BS1 with fewer bugs at some point, to see, and hopefully understand, just how good and fantastically layered it really is. It's alive in a way that Bioshock Infinite just isn't. Although in all fairness, this game sometimes tries to be, and almost succeeds on occasion.

As for the aesthetic, it wasn't as good as what they'd originally wanted and tried to do before technology limitations forced them to scrap that and go in another direction, imo. That happened to a lot of this game, which is part of why it took so long to get it done; they just kept scrapping things, some of which they'd been working on for years, and more than half of the game is just gone. Not because it was bad (from what I can tell, most of it was at least as good as, or better than, what we got) but just because it was taking them too long or they hit a snag they couldn't work out and anything that wasn't deemed absolutely perfect (by whatever obscure, arbitrary metric was used to judge that) wasn't allowed in the final product, no matter how good it was. That seems to be one of the numerous key problems they had during the very troubled development period. They spent so much effort and put so much focus on making it "perfect", that they neglected putting nearly as much effort and focus into making it good. They thought those two things were the same, although they really aren't, and this game is an excellent example of that. But unlike some of the other key problems they had in development, this one never got addressed, so it shows up all over and throughout the game.

Anyway, setting that tangent aside, that last point you made caught my eye. I agree that the characters were fairly interesting. Enough to get emotionally involved in, for the most part. But the story, not so much, or rather not in as absolute a way. I cared about what was happening, but they kept switching around so much that eventually I just gave up on giving a flying ♥♥♥♥. Did you happen to notice that you have little, if any, effect on the overall events of that game? Oh, sure, the people you kill and their families are (ostensibly) impacted by what you do, at least until all the weird reality-traversing effectively brings them back as semi-merged screaming piles of existential horror and dread, but even that doesn't seem to matter much. A parallel version of those guys always pops up, sometimes even in the same reality where you already killed them. But as for the events, neither you nor Elizabeth ever actually change the reality of the situation, you both just run away to a different reality that more closely suits whatever your current purposes are. Which ties into their respective characters and personalities, but causes some rather glaring story issues. Even at the end, when Elizabeth finally does anything remotely close to her godlike potential of altering reality, instead of just running from it and going to a different one, it doesn't exactly work out too well.

It's like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and vice versa. So the characters' stories and the events' stories weren't cohesive when they needed to be, and clashed when they shouldn't have (which is another big problem in this game, imo. It reminds me of Mighty No. 9 in that respect. It's like someone took two or more great games, tried to mash them together without any prior attempt to make them compatible, and ended up with something at best half as good as either). And in this case, the result is that the different storylines you run into just get dropped, abandoned, and forgotten about, along with the themes and issues that were brought up with them. You simply ditch what's happening and move on to the next thing, JUST as things are getting good, and you never go back. There's no real conclusion to any of it, and although I'm still a little curious as to what happened in the original (or at least, the first viewed) version of reality you start out in, the reason they're able to just throw it away like that in the first place is because none of it really matters to the main or meta narrative anyway. Unlike in BS1, the source of the conflict genuinely does not matter to the game, it could be literally ♥♥♥♥ing anything. That's why it goes through the various subtle, thematic shifts (racism, classism, sectarianism, jingoism, etc.) that it does throughout the game, because it's ultimately pointless. Just background filler, that I suspect was put in to satisfy the people who wanted to tackle those issues, without having to sacrifice the different issues other people wanted to tackle, or change what those at the top making the decisions wanted the game to actually be about.

It's pandering, but not to the audience, as the OP and some others in here believe. Rather, it's to those working on it who wanted their own creative voices to be represented that the pandering was directed towards. That's how I see it, anyway. The only reason they picked the themes they did is because they're problems that the U.S. has always had and they were becoming increasing topical at the time. If that game had been held back even longer and released between a couple years ago and now, sexism would have been a much larger factor, not because it mattered to the game or because they had any message or statement or ideology they wanted to express, but just 'cause. It's popular, therefore it will sell, so put it in. Anyone working on the game who honestly thought it was important to the product was allowed to labor under their delusions. Quite manipulative, really. And a bit self-sabotaging, too. Take, for example, them bringing up the topic of racism, laying the issue out, but then just dismissing it all with a handwave and continuing on like that part of the game never happened. While it does minimalize racism itself and express how stupid, trivial, and pointless both it and the thinking behind it are, it also minimalizes the struggle against racism, and defeats whatever purpose the theme was intended to have.

And that's what happens with the vast majority of the narratives and themes in this game. Their meaning is annihilated, reduced to nothing, as the true theme (which was already stated and explained in previous, semi-recent posts) of "the artist (or in this case, perhaps the producer/supplier of the art) is almighty and the audience (and consequently, the consumer/customer) doesn't ♥♥♥♥ing matter one whit or one ♥♥♥♥" comes forth and makes itself known. It is very specifically expressed that you, the player (what you choose, what you do, how you play, and by extension what you feel or think about what you're playing), are totally unimportant to the game or anything to do with it. Including those who made it, would be the obvious implication. So it really is a giant middle finger to anyone who plays it, especially if they actually bought it. Needless to say, I didn't appreciate paying those ♥♥♥♥wads to tell me that.

Of course, sales DO matter, and those depend on the audience/consumer/customer/etc., as it turns out. So, judging from the subsequent closure of the whole studio due to sales supposedly being less than expected, it seems like they were hoisted by their own metaphor....

What drugs are you on?

I'm guessing meth.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 4:37pm
In topic Infinity ruined Bioshocks legacy
Originally posted by LHGreen:
Originally posted by Gurkhal:
I'm with you. My Bioschock 1 was bugged so I wouldn't finish it while Bioschock 2 was just boring. Infinite trumps them all with being able to be played, having a nice aesthetic and having a story and characters that I could and did care about.

That sucks about it being that buggy. But that's been true of all the Bioshock games, including this one. Most of the threads here are to do with other people having terrible issues themselves, rather than discussions of the game's quality or it's ostensibly mind-bending (not actually mind-bending, just murky and convoluted) plot, narrative, and ending. So your experience with bugs may not be accurately indicative of the overall quality of either game, and could be tainting your opinion. Personally, I try to determine how common a problem glitchiness is in a game, regardless of whether I've experienced it myself or not, before I judge said game based on it. Hope you get to play BS1 with fewer bugs at some point, to see, and hopefully understand, just how good and fantastically layered it really is. It's alive in a way that Bioshock Infinite just isn't. Although in all fairness, this game sometimes tries to be, and almost succeeds on occasion.

As for the aesthetic, it wasn't as good as what they'd originally wanted and tried to do before technology limitations forced them to scrap that and go in another direction, imo. That happened to a lot of this game, which is part of why it took so long to get it done; they just kept scrapping things, some of which they'd been working on for years, and more than half of the game is just gone. Not because it was bad (from what I can tell, most of it was at least as good as, or better than, what we got) but just because it was taking them too long or they hit a snag they couldn't work out and anything that wasn't deemed absolutely perfect (by whatever obscure, arbitrary metric was used to judge that) wasn't allowed in the final product, no matter how good it was. That seems to be one of the numerous key problems they had during the very troubled development period. They spent so much effort and put so much focus on making it "perfect", that they neglected putting nearly as much effort and focus into making it good. They thought those two things were the same, although they really aren't, and this game is an excellent example of that. But unlike some of the other key problems they had in development, this one never got addressed, so it shows up all over and throughout the game.

Anyway, setting that tangent aside, that last point you made caught my eye. I agree that the characters were fairly interesting. Enough to get emotionally involved in, for the most part. But the story, not so much, or rather not in as absolute a way. I cared about what was happening, but they kept switching around so much that eventually I just gave up on giving a flying ♥♥♥♥. Did you happen to notice that you have little, if any, effect on the overall events of that game? Oh, sure, the people you kill and their families are (ostensibly) impacted by what you do, at least until all the weird reality-traversing effectively brings them back as semi-merged screaming piles of existential horror and dread, but even that doesn't seem to matter much. A parallel version of those guys always pops up, sometimes even in the same reality where you already killed them. But as for the events, neither you nor Elizabeth ever actually change the reality of the situation, you both just run away to a different reality that more closely suits whatever your current purposes are. Which ties into their respective characters and personalities, but causes some rather glaring story issues. Even at the end, when Elizabeth finally does anything remotely close to her godlike potential of altering reality, instead of just running from it and going to a different one, it doesn't exactly work out too well.

It's like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and vice versa. So the characters' stories and the events' stories weren't cohesive when they needed to be, and clashed when they shouldn't have (which is another big problem in this game, imo. It reminds me of Mighty No. 9 in that respect. It's like someone took two or more great games, tried to mash them together without any prior attempt to make them compatible, and ended up with something at best half as good as either). And in this case, the result is that the different storylines you run into just get dropped, abandoned, and forgotten about, along with the themes and issues that were brought up with them. You simply ditch what's happening and move on to the next thing, JUST as things are getting good, and you never go back. There's no real conclusion to any of it, and although I'm still a little curious as to what happened in the original (or at least, the first viewed) version of reality you start out in, the reason they're able to just throw it away like that in the first place is because none of it really matters to the main or meta narrative anyway. Unlike in BS1, the source of the conflict genuinely does not matter to the game, it could be literally ♥♥♥♥ing anything. That's why it goes through the various subtle, thematic shifts (racism, classism, sectarianism, jingoism, etc.) that it does throughout the game, because it's ultimately pointless. Just background filler, that I suspect was put in to satisfy the people who wanted to tackle those issues, without having to sacrifice the different issues other people wanted to tackle, or change what those at the top making the decisions wanted the game to actually be about.

It's pandering, but not to the audience, as the OP and some others in here believe. Rather, it's to those working on it who wanted their own creative voices to be represented that the pandering was directed towards. That's how I see it, anyway. The only reason they picked the themes they did is because they're problems that the U.S. has always had and they were becoming increasing topical at the time. If that game had been held back even longer and released between a couple years ago and now, sexism would have been a much larger factor, not because it mattered to the game or because they had any message or statement or ideology they wanted to express, but just 'cause. It's popular, therefore it will sell, so put it in. Anyone working on the game who honestly thought it was important to the product was allowed to labor under their delusions. Quite manipulative, really. And a bit self-sabotaging, too. Take, for example, them bringing up the topic of racism, laying the issue out, but then just dismissing it all with a handwave and continuing on like that part of the game never happened. While it does minimalize racism itself and express how stupid, trivial, and pointless both it and the thinking behind it are, it also minimalizes the struggle against racism, and defeats whatever purpose the theme was intended to have.

And that's what happens with the vast majority of the narratives and themes in this game. Their meaning is annihilated, reduced to nothing, as the true theme (which was already stated and explained in previous, semi-recent posts) of "the artist (or in this case, perhaps the producer/supplier of the art) is almighty and the audience (and consequently, the consumer/customer) doesn't ♥♥♥♥ing matter one whit or one ♥♥♥♥" comes forth and makes itself known. It is very specifically expressed that you, the player (what you choose, what you do, how you play, and by extension what you feel or think about what you're playing), are totally unimportant to the game or anything to do with it. Including those who made it, would be the obvious implication. So it really is a giant middle finger to anyone who plays it, especially if they actually bought it. Needless to say, I didn't appreciate paying those ♥♥♥♥wads to tell me that.

Of course, sales DO matter, and those depend on the audience/consumer/customer/etc., as it turns out. So, judging from the subsequent closure of the whole studio due to sales supposedly being less than expected, it seems like they were hoisted by their own metaphor....

What drugs are you on?

I'm guessing meth.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 4:37pm
In topic Infinity ruined Bioshocks legacy
Originally posted by LHGreen:
Originally posted by Gurkhal:
I'm with you. My Bioschock 1 was bugged so I wouldn't finish it while Bioschock 2 was just boring. Infinite trumps them all with being able to be played, having a nice aesthetic and having a story and characters that I could and did care about.

That sucks about it being that buggy. But that's been true of all the Bioshock games, including this one. Most of the threads here are to do with other people having terrible issues themselves, rather than discussions of the game's quality or it's ostensibly mind-bending (not actually mind-bending, just murky and convoluted) plot, narrative, and ending. So your experience with bugs may not be accurately indicative of the overall quality of either game, and could be tainting your opinion. Personally, I try to determine how common a problem glitchiness is in a game, regardless of whether I've experienced it myself or not, before I judge said game based on it. Hope you get to play BS1 with fewer bugs at some point, to see, and hopefully understand, just how good and fantastically layered it really is. It's alive in a way that Bioshock Infinite just isn't. Although in all fairness, this game sometimes tries to be, and almost succeeds on occasion.

As for the aesthetic, it wasn't as good as what they'd originally wanted and tried to do before technology limitations forced them to scrap that and go in another direction, imo. That happened to a lot of this game, which is part of why it took so long to get it done; they just kept scrapping things, some of which they'd been working on for years, and more than half of the game is just gone. Not because it was bad (from what I can tell, most of it was at least as good as, or better than, what we got) but just because it was taking them too long or they hit a snag they couldn't work out and anything that wasn't deemed absolutely perfect (by whatever obscure, arbitrary metric was used to judge that) wasn't allowed in the final product, no matter how good it was. That seems to be one of the numerous key problems they had during the very troubled development period. They spent so much effort and put so much focus on making it "perfect", that they neglected putting nearly as much effort and focus into making it good. They thought those two things were the same, although they really aren't, and this game is an excellent example of that. But unlike some of the other key problems they had in development, this one never got addressed, so it shows up all over and throughout the game.

Anyway, setting that tangent aside, that last point you made caught my eye. I agree that the characters were fairly interesting. Enough to get emotionally involved in, for the most part. But the story, not so much, or rather not in as absolute a way. I cared about what was happening, but they kept switching around so much that eventually I just gave up on giving a flying ♥♥♥♥. Did you happen to notice that you have little, if any, effect on the overall events of that game? Oh, sure, the people you kill and their families are (ostensibly) impacted by what you do, at least until all the weird reality-traversing effectively brings them back as semi-merged screaming piles of existential horror and dread, but even that doesn't seem to matter much. A parallel version of those guys always pops up, sometimes even in the same reality where you already killed them. But as for the events, neither you nor Elizabeth ever actually change the reality of the situation, you both just run away to a different reality that more closely suits whatever your current purposes are. Which ties into their respective characters and personalities, but causes some rather glaring story issues. Even at the end, when Elizabeth finally does anything remotely close to her godlike potential of altering reality, instead of just running from it and going to a different one, it doesn't exactly work out too well.

It's like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and vice versa. So the characters' stories and the events' stories weren't cohesive when they needed to be, and clashed when they shouldn't have (which is another big problem in this game, imo. It reminds me of Mighty No. 9 in that respect. It's like someone took two or more great games, tried to mash them together without any prior attempt to make them compatible, and ended up with something at best half as good as either). And in this case, the result is that the different storylines you run into just get dropped, abandoned, and forgotten about, along with the themes and issues that were brought up with them. You simply ditch what's happening and move on to the next thing, JUST as things are getting good, and you never go back. There's no real conclusion to any of it, and although I'm still a little curious as to what happened in the original (or at least, the first viewed) version of reality you start out in, the reason they're able to just throw it away like that in the first place is because none of it really matters to the main or meta narrative anyway. Unlike in BS1, the source of the conflict genuinely does not matter to the game, it could be literally ♥♥♥♥ing anything. That's why it goes through the various subtle, thematic shifts (racism, classism, sectarianism, jingoism, etc.) that it does throughout the game, because it's ultimately pointless. Just background filler, that I suspect was put in to satisfy the people who wanted to tackle those issues, without having to sacrifice the different issues other people wanted to tackle, or change what those at the top making the decisions wanted the game to actually be about.

It's pandering, but not to the audience, as the OP and some others in here believe. Rather, it's to those working on it who wanted their own creative voices to be represented that the pandering was directed towards. That's how I see it, anyway. The only reason they picked the themes they did is because they're problems that the U.S. has always had and they were becoming increasing topical at the time. If that game had been held back even longer and released between a couple years ago and now, sexism would have been a much larger factor, not because it mattered to the game or because they had any message or statement or ideology they wanted to express, but just 'cause. It's popular, therefore it will sell, so put it in. Anyone working on the game who honestly thought it was important to the product was allowed to labor under their delusions. Quite manipulative, really. And a bit self-sabotaging, too. Take, for example, them bringing up the topic of racism, laying the issue out, but then just dismissing it all with a handwave and continuing on like that part of the game never happened. While it does minimalize racism itself and express how stupid, trivial, and pointless both it and the thinking behind it are, it also minimalizes the struggle against racism, and defeats whatever purpose the theme was intended to have.

And that's what happens with the vast majority of the narratives and themes in this game. Their meaning is annihilated, reduced to nothing, as the true theme (which was already stated and explained in previous, semi-recent posts) of "the artist (or in this case, perhaps the producer/supplier of the art) is almighty and the audience (and consequently, the consumer/customer) doesn't ♥♥♥♥ing matter one whit or one ♥♥♥♥" comes forth and makes itself known. It is very specifically expressed that you, the player (what you choose, what you do, how you play, and by extension what you feel or think about what you're playing), are totally unimportant to the game or anything to do with it. Including those who made it, would be the obvious implication. So it really is a giant middle finger to anyone who plays it, especially if they actually bought it. Needless to say, I didn't appreciate paying those ♥♥♥♥wads to tell me that.

Of course, sales DO matter, and those depend on the audience/consumer/customer/etc., as it turns out. So, judging from the subsequent closure of the whole studio due to sales supposedly being less than expected, it seems like they were hoisted by their own metaphor....

What drugs are you on?

I'm guessing meth.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 4:12pm
In topic [edited]
Originally posted by Nex3t:
replace "CDPR" for "Donald Trump" and mistery solved
+1
Oct 20, 2018 @ 12:14pm
In topic Test mode fixes
You are switching back and forth? How do the two versions compare? I have not played stable in months and forget how it runs.
Trudat. This game is unique among my newer games in the way it uses the hardware.

First you need a strong cpu and lots of ram including virtual memory. I often see 13gb of virtual memory being used. A slow quad core with minimal ram is going to get hammered. I also have an 8 core cpu.

Then the gpu used makes a huge difference. I recently upgraded from an AMD Fury to an AMD Vega64. Fps with the Fury is in the 30-100 fps range with it usually being somewhere around 60fps. The Vega64 ranges from 13-147 fps with it usually being somewhere around 60fps.
The difference is that the Fury gives 100% all the time while the Vega64 keeps throttling down in certain areas and that is when fps tanks. When it powers up frame rates leap up.
The Vega64 is half again more powerful than the Fury but for Subnautica the Fury is the better gpu.

It is my opinion that if the frame rates drop below 40 fps and stay there for any time, then physics problems will start happening. The Unity engine "needs" high fps to work at its best.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 11:06am
In topic What is the name of the player?
Originally posted by Salinité:
Even though biologically there is no such thing as a human "race" which was what I think mikikit was getting to. It is a social concept, and if we are using well-known American or European demographics to draw from I suppose "Riley Robinson" would either be hispanic or southeast Asian.

Yes. I was commenting on a social comment with a social reply. Hopefully we will not go further along that path here.

To me he looks North African with some steam punk but mostly gene engineered.
Oct 20, 2018 @ 10:55am
In topic floating mushroom
That shows up at point 0,0,0 on the map. That is also where all wounded critters go so I often set up a viewing base there to watch them play.

This is what shows up in exp there.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1543790110
Oct 20, 2018 @ 10:51am
In topic Test mode fixes
Me too, then started a new game. Has anyone with a cyclops tried it lately?
Oct 20, 2018 @ 12:38am
In topic Test mode fixes
It's just that the devs had the cyclops running really well for a bit then something they did broke the doors. It will get fixed sooner or later.
Oct 19, 2018 @ 9:35am
In topic What is the name of the player?
Originally posted by William:
More importantly what race is he

HUMAN.
Oct 19, 2018 @ 9:34am
In topic Your thoughts?
and if it is hardware, why do the best games always have to be run on the best hardware? that really sucks :/

New games run best on new hardware. They used to call it riding the wave and now they call it the bleeding edge.
We all use the same software (Subnautica). Some players have lots of problems, some have few problems, and some have no problems. What's the difference? Hardware.

The building system is fun but a little simplistic, but individual bricks sounds like it could get tedious. And what is a brick worth? One brick = one titanium? Mining could become even more important than it already is.
Oct 19, 2018 @ 9:14am
In topic Thinking of revisiting this
Trudat. In stable I would get occasional stuttering when loading map chunks while in experimental the stuttering is almost completely gone.
Frame rates are generally better but on my system the creepvine forests just kill fps. For some reason the gpu throttles back and fps plummets.

The ground might still be a little porous so you can fall through it. More testing needed. I almost never fell through the ground in stable.
There is a big lack of fish, minerals, and fragments on most of the map, but they are working on it.
Oct 18, 2018 @ 7:15pm
In topic No Kyanite
You can't compare the stable release to the experimental version as they are VERY different.

You found one of the biggest differences right there. Resources and life in general is very sparse but it is getting better. I typically don't have the resources to build more than 2 small bases. In one game I could not build a prawn or a cyclops. All the wrecks were empty.

But you are not supposed to get angry. Just email the devs and send them your log, and in a week or so you will see changes being made. As long as you are aware that it is a three steps forward and two steps back process it's all good.
Oct 18, 2018 @ 2:28pm
In topic Subnautica Steam, Console & Expansion Update
CS#61498

An oddity. When I last played I saved and quit while swimming. Today every time I restarted it saved everything except it put me back where i saved last night even though I had saved while in the base.
So as an experiment I saved and quit while swimming and this time it saved properly. More testing needed.

EDIT: If I save in a base it tosses me out to last night's save location when I restart but if I save while swimming it restarts me from that location.
Showing 1,301-1,320 of 2,925 entries