No-Killing-Rule

Hello developers of Subnautica,

I’m a huge fan of your work. I played the first game for more than 200 hours, and honestly I think it’s nearly a perfect game. From what I’ve seen so far, it feels like you’re capturing that same magic again, and you’re definitely on the right track. The game already looks great.

However, I do have one important complaint about something that I think many Subnautica players really care about: the “no killing” rule.

I understand the goal behind it and why you want the game to feel scarier and more survival-focused, but I personally think introducing limited creature combat would actually improve the experience if it’s balanced correctly.

While playing, there were smaller predators that became really annoying, and sadly there’s almost nothing the player can do against them. Distracting them is not always enough. I think players should at least be able to defend themselves and kill smaller creatures.

One of the best parts of survival games is interaction with the world, and combat is one form of interaction. Removing it completely makes the world feel a bit less interactive and less realistic.

I still think the game should avoid guns and stay focused on survival/PvE. A small knife is more than enough. Adding health points to creatures and allowing basic damage would already make things more interesting.

Please don’t add overpowered weapons like the Stasis Rifle again because, honestly, that made things too easy. Leviathans should still feel terrifying and nearly impossible to kill. But I think the possibility should still technically exist.

If the player only has a knife and no overpowered tools, killing a leviathan would already be almost impossible anyway. And if you want them to basically never die, you could simply give them an absurd amount of health. Just knowing it is technically possible makes the game feel more immersive, challenging, and rewarding for certain types of players.

I think a good game should appeal to different playstyles. Giving players the choice is important. The game shouldn’t become combat-focused, but limited survival combat would add a lot to the experience.

Also, creatures should take damage from vehicles too. It was funny in the first game, and honestly it also makes sense realistically because collisions would obviously hurt.

Thank you for making such amazing games, and I’m really excited for the future of Subnautica.

I agree with you, yes the games are made to be about survival and that does mean hurting other creatures such as small fish. the no reward and no tools like the stasis rifle would make things fair

This might mean little as there is a new leadership in place, but i was playing sub since it was first open for the public to test and i hold the game dear to heart. I was let down a little in Below Zero as it felt like a forced accommodation to mixed ethnic groups and sexual orientation preferences, and the story felt like a 3rd thought after the map and creature design coming in 2nd…. its good to show diversity because thats what the real world is like and it helps people connect, but it should just feel natural, not emphasised. because it comes off as forced “woke” and trying to prove you guys are “down” with all those things and supportive. Its kind of like a white guy telling a coloured person they have other coloured friends…. but regardless.

The first game was a premium experience, the second game was new, a little exciting, some interesting areas, but most of the land navigation felt like a chore and the story was dull. And then there is the 3rd instalment, and here comes the focus of the topic that many people have strong feelings for. “The no combat issue”. I know me and nearly all vegan activists if it came to survival, would use weapons to defend and ideally ‘remove’ the threat immediately infront of them. Its instict to stay alive and use what you can to achieve that even if it means going toe to toe with a creature that plans to use you as nourishment and killing it. Removing this mechanic in the game feels more like a green peace activist move and some more ‘woke’ ideologies forced upon the fanbase. Your game has never been like “The Forest” or other survival games that force horror esc, gory blood bathed battles. But minimal combat was still a huge contribution to the games success and playability.

The IP of subnautica was so big because of the original formula. It was realistic in an unrealistic situation. Survival meant being intuitive, using what was at hand to benefit the chances of survival, not being empathetic when it came to life or death situations, all while enhancing your own ability to maintain survival, understanding that this planet may be your new home forever. So we dug our roots in and really made ourselves as comfortable as possible in an extremely uncomfortable situation, while still maintaining our objective to escape until it was or was no longer possible.

The narrative may of changed across the games but the purpose is essentially the same. Survive all while trying to achieve your goal. As a Developer, if you were to ask yourself the same question and be realistic, would you, or would you not craft weapons from technology that is also designed to be able to craft weapons. Or use your surroundings to kill something that is out to kill you if there was no other choice. You may design the game in a direction that suggests against combat. But the way people play games doesnt always go as structured as you intend. Every gamer, like every person approaches situations differently and may find themselves in a spot of bother where, not intentionally seeked, but just happened to find themselves in a threatening situation where if a weapon could of been on hand it would have been used to survive.

I feel this was a big step in the wrong direction for a company thats already caused a lot of waves within the community “pun intended”

Good game companies and the ones that get rewarded the most praise and support from their community are the ones that understand their player base. Look at Crimson Desert, its literally changing the main games story post release because the players had some negative thoughts about it.

Obviously, end of the day you guys dont need to listen but I’d suggest moving away from this “woke ideology good guy inclusiveness” because end of the day, the amount of materials dug out if the earth to create the components you all use to craft digital games and the electrical consumption isn’t environmentally friendly and im sure animals have lost lives and habitat just so your team can sit comfortably in the office you work from. So getting to why we are all here, to experience an amazing game designed for gamers, not environmentalist and to maybe, just maybe….. take in some of the criticism from the public. The first game was the golden egg. The second was the annoying middle child and the third was the potential hopeful saviour of the franchise.

It’s early, so things can still be considered, changed, implemented and fix.

Thank you,
Teddy Mate.