Subnautica 2 Won't Let You Kill Fish, and the Devs Aren't Apologizing
A Subnautica 2 developer told frustrated players to "go play Sons of the Forest or something if you want to kill," doubling down on Unknown Worlds' pacifist survival design. The comment came after players complained about aggressive fish swarming their bases with no lethal countermeasure available. The studio confirms lethal weapons are not coming, but non-lethal base defenses are planned.
What Actually Happened
Level designer Artyom O'Rielly responded bluntly on Discord to a player lamenting the inability to kill creatures in Subnautica 2. The exchange, spotted by GamesRadar and reported by PC Gamer, escalated quickly across Reddit and fan forums. O'Rielly's full stance: "We aren't a killing game. Go play Sons of the Forest or something if you want to kill."
The developer followed up with additional context that clarifies the design intent. "You are here to exist on this planet, not to dominate it." This framing echoes the original Subnautica's philosophy, where the protagonist is a crash survivor dependent on an alien ecosystem rather than a conqueror equipped with conventional weaponry.
The timing matters. Subnautica 2 is in early access. Player feedback channels are active and influential. Developers at this stage typically balance vision preservation with community responsiveness. O'Rielly's tone suggests Unknown Worlds is drawing a hard line on a core design pillar rather than treating it as negotiable.
The specific frustration prompting this exchange is concrete and valid: aggressive fish currently harass player bases, and players have no way to deter them. The developer acknowledged this particular pain point separately, confirming the team will address "all those angry fish at your door" through non-lethal means.
This is not a new debate for the franchise. The original Subnautica deliberately excluded lethal firearms. Developer Charlie Cleveland stated in 2018 that adding guns would fundamentally alter the player's relationship with the world. The sequel is extending that commitment into multiplayer, where social dynamics complicate pacifist design—one player might respect the ecosystem while another wants to clear threats for their base.
Why This Design Choice Matters More Than It Seems
Most survival games treat combat as a default verb. Minecraft, Valheim, Sons of the Forest, ARK, The Forest—lethal creature interaction is standard. Subnautica's refusal creates an asymmetry that shapes everything from tension mechanics to resource loops.
Here's the trade-off most analyses miss: removing lethal options forces environmental storytelling and evasion mechanics to carry heavier load. The original Subnautica's Reaper Leviathans work as horror elements precisely because you cannot shoot your way through encounters. Your seamoth gets grabbed. You flee. The game becomes thriller rather than shooter.
But this design exacts a cost on player agency. When a Stalker destroys your seamoth for the third time, the fantasy of "existing on this planet" frays. You're not a harmonious observer; you're prey with inconvenient inventory. The base harassment issue in Subnautica 2 amplifies this tension. Bases represent player investment and creative expression. Persistent threats you cannot neutralize feel less like thematic immersion and more like system disrespect.
Unknown Worlds is betting that non-lethal deterrence—likely perimeter defenses, creature repellents, or habitat modifications—can thread this needle. The risk: these systems may prove less satisfying than direct confrontation, or more cumbersome to implement, or both. Subnautica's torpedo and perimeter defense systems in the original were underutilized precisely because they required preparation against threats players often preferred to simply avoid.
The multiplayer dimension adds complexity invisible in singleplayer. Who decides when deterrence is deployed? What if players disagree about acceptable ecosystem disruption? Pacifist design assumes unified player intent. Cooperative survival games rarely achieve this.
What's Confirmed, What's Unknown, and What to Watch
| Status | Detail |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | No lethal weapons or creature killing in Subnautica 2 |
| Confirmed | Non-lethal base defense solutions are in development |
| Confirmed | Multiplayer is a core feature, expanding from singleplayer foundation |
| Unknown | Specific timeline for base defense implementation |
| Unknown | Whether deterrence tools will satisfy current frustrated players |
| Unknown | How multiplayer coordination will handle shared defensive decisions |
| Rumored/Uncertain | Full release window; early access duration unspecified |
The critical unknown is whether Unknown Worlds can deliver non-lethal tools that feel empowering rather than restrictive. The original game's success suggests the philosophy resonates broadly. But early access communities skew toward engaged, vocal players with specific expectations. The Discord exchange reveals friction between this cohort and studio intent.
Watch for three developments:
- Base defense patch implementation: The specific mechanics matter enormously. Passive perimeter fields? Active deployables requiring resource maintenance? Creature relocation rather than deterrence? Each carries different player satisfaction implications.
- Multiplayer coordination tools: How will the game handle disagreements between players about defensive responses? This could reveal whether the pacifist design holds under social pressure.
- Narrative justification strength: The original Subnautica's story eventually explained weapon absence through plot. Subnautica 2 needs equivalent or stronger framing to maintain coherence as players spend dozens of hours in its world.
The mod community has already responded. A "kill all the fish" mod exists, suggesting player demand will find alternative satisfaction. Unknown Worlds' tolerance for this—whether technical or philosophical—may indicate how rigidly they intend to enforce their vision.
The Bottom Line
Subnautica 2 is not malfunctioning; it's disagreeing with genre convention on purpose. The developer's bluntness signals confidence in this bet, not defensiveness. Your decision: whether pacifist survival thriller appeals more than lethal survival sandbox. If you need combat resolution for satisfaction, this franchise remains wrong for you. If environmental tension and evasion-driven challenge attract you, the sequel is extending what worked. The open question is whether base defense solutions arrive quickly enough to prevent early access frustration from calcifying into permanent reputation damage.
