Hey. I'm the person who wrote that rant - but see what the person above said. Constructive doesn't have to be polite, and this doesn't make any points less invalid. And oh, a reference? It's not a reference. It is literally a direct visual rip.
If it was a ripoff because of the appearance, wouldn't it cause, like, a LOT of items to be ripoffs?
Let's see...
We have: the creeper set, TMNT set, Alien set, parka outfit (to South Park), the Hero's clothes...
As of ennemies: I counted 11 for the solar eclipse that would be removed purely because they look too much like the thing they're referring to.
"But they act nothing like their original counterpart! It doesn't count then".
Well finally, let's get back to our Subnautica guys:
The first (the GL one) is indeed close to its original counterpart, but the other (the reaper), while still a reference, has nothing to do with its sub counterpart: instead, he looks like (SPOILERS!) a sea dragon.
And do they serve the same function? No. The wyrm is made to, basically, make the player understand he's not welcome here. At 3 million HP, he chases the player everywhere, harassing it until it leaves. In Subnautica, GLs are more of some kind of guardians you must sneak past.
So what I mean is: yes, they look similar, but looks aren't everything, or even patterns. The distinction between a reference and a ripoff is admittedly blurry, but to me, creativity is also adapting other things within yours, as a homage to the other, while putting your own twist in it.
My suggestion: to prevent any controversy, Fabsol could change the sprite slightly (say, making it deep green? That could be cool).
Of course, it's a matter of opinion, but here's one. And while politeness doesn't change the value of a point, it does change its credibility.