Can we talk about hunger?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Frigidman said:

 

I dunno anymore. After reading over two giant threads both talking about the exact same thing... everyone's opinion on the matter have blurred into one big mash.

--

I am for hunger, if its done well and innovative (possibly as ses_jacob wrote).

I am against hunger, if its just another dwindling bar that you have to manually keep refilling over and over and over.

I was just trying to encourage people to actually expand on their statements and challenge them, rather than just read "No hunger please" and "Hunger please" without absolutely no reasoning behind it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, ent|ty said:

I was just trying to encourage people to actually expand on their statements and challenge them, rather than just read "No hunger please" and "Hunger please" without absolutely no reasoning behind it at all.

Indeed.

However after 8 pages of posts (combined), I am starting to see a pattern of repeated reasoning now. Not trying to generalize, but it looks like 3 sides. Everyone can point to various other games they have played, saying they enjoyed it like X did, or Y. But that also doesnt help the argument much because unless everyone else has also played that exact same game, the idea is a bit lost. So, what makes hunger appealing to some? I honestly believe its because they experienced it in another game, and they want that added here.

Like, I can point at The Long Dark. It has hunger, and thirst, among many other horrific survival meters and issues. If hunger was NOT in that game, it would basically be a broken game. But trying to compare TLD to Astroneer, is apples n oranges. Of course we dont (hopefully we all dont lol) want a survival system like TLD jambed into astroneer, because then we may never even get halfway across a single planet before having to start a whole new game each time! LOL!

But if you, or others have not played TLD... you have no idea what I'm talking about. Kind of like I have no idea what you guys say when comparing to minecraft.

So... that leaves us all, to break down the full mechanic of other games, and map them out for others to read here. Ugh, not sure anyone wants to do that either.

Lastly, I guess its a time thing. Who wants to fully map out THEIR idea of a hunger/food/thirst system, thinking all the angles, doing a bunch of research, and present it here, only to be ignored or not considered because the devs have already done their own planning, and have their own ideas to set into motion :/

Anyhow, long winded answer to why I see why a lot of us just say "no hunger please" and "hunger please' :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im the type of person that says hunger please. if the people who dont want hunger dont want it then they should play creative mode in astroneer.

 

leave survival mode to the hardcore players and creative to the comfy casual players.

12 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Indeed.

However after 8 pages of posts (combined), I am starting to see a pattern of repeated reasoning now. Not trying to generalize, but it looks like 3 sides. Everyone can point to various other games they have played, saying they enjoyed it like X did, or Y. But that also doesnt help the argument much because unless everyone else has also played that exact same game, the idea is a bit lost. So, what makes hunger appealing to some? I honestly believe its because they experienced it in another game, and they want that added here.

Like, I can point at The Long Dark. It has hunger, and thirst, among many other horrific survival meters and issues. If hunger was NOT in that game, it would basically be a broken game. But trying to compare TLD to Astroneer, is apples n oranges. Of course we dont (hopefully we all dont lol) want a survival system like TLD jambed into astroneer, because then we may never even get halfway across a single planet before having to start a whole new game each time! LOL!

But if you, or others have not played TLD... you have no idea what I'm talking about. Kind of like I have no idea what you guys say when comparing to minecraft.

So... that leaves us all, to break down the full mechanic of other games, and map them out for others to read here. Ugh, not sure anyone wants to do that either.

Lastly, I guess its a time thing. Who wants to fully map out THEIR idea of a hunger/food/thirst system, thinking all the angles, doing a bunch of research, and present it here, only to be ignored or not considered because the devs have already done their own planning, and have their own ideas to set into motion :/

Anyhow, long winded answer to why I see why a lot of us just say "no hunger please" and "hunger please' :D 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Indeed.

However after 8 pages of posts (combined), I am starting to see a pattern of repeated reasoning now. Not trying to generalize, but it looks like 3 sides. Everyone can point to various other games they have played, saying they enjoyed it like X did, or Y. But that also doesnt help the argument much because unless everyone else has also played that exact same game, the idea is a bit lost. So, what makes hunger appealing to some? I honestly believe its because they experienced it in another game, and they want that added here.

Like, I can point at The Long Dark. It has hunger, and thirst, among many other horrific survival meters and issues. If hunger was NOT in that game, it would basically be a broken game. But trying to compare TLD to Astroneer, is apples n oranges. Of course we dont (hopefully we all dont lol) want a survival system like TLD jambed into astroneer, because then we may never even get halfway across a single planet before having to start a whole new game each time! LOL!

But if you, or others have not played TLD... you have no idea what I'm talking about. Kind of like I have no idea what you guys say when comparing to minecraft.

So... that leaves us all, to break down the full mechanic of other games, and map them out for others to read here. Ugh, not sure anyone wants to do that either.

Lastly, I guess its a time thing. Who wants to fully map out THEIR idea of a hunger/food/thirst system, thinking all the angles, doing a bunch of research, and present it here, only to be ignored or not considered because the devs have already done their own planning, and have their own ideas to set into motion :/

Anyhow, long winded answer to why I see why a lot of us just say "no hunger please" and "hunger please' :D 

Yes, I currently have access to "The Long Dark", the irony being that being a survival game was not even their intent - only something to provide to players while they worked on their 'storyline' mode (the original intent). A big complaint about The Long Dark's hunger system is that the game is pretty much a calorie counter, with the player completely pre-occupied with stuffing his face with anything just to stay alive. My beef was not with hunger itself, but rather how it was implemented in the game as is - pretty much causing me to rely on what I loot within the world for my survival - and not anything I could do with my innovation/imagination (forging crude axes, bows, spears, etc). What I do enjoy about that game (though I haven't played it for almost a year now) was the challenge from the weather. I probably will NEVER play TLD again because the combat mechanic to fight off the wolf is horrible, and akin to "Day One: Gary's Incident" . In fact the developer shares a similar story, similar backdrop, similar engine, and similar combat, and even similar company name.

The problem is what seems to be a large group of players (in any Early Access game forum) always trying to turn every game into exact replicas of each other, which frankly makes it boring. Astroneer got my attention because it ISNT just another survival game.

If the core gameplay is there, (as it was in Minecraft), all that can be added later as modules (or even leave it up to the mod community). Make the core good, then extend from there.

Of course this is just my opinion, and the caveat is always that I accept whatever the developer does in the end, because I can deal with anything thrown at me anyway. Thanks for your response, I'm still honing my own argument on this matter :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh this forum is really awesome. it takes me back to the old days of when ksp was being made with all the different ideas and discussions on gameplay mechanics. its good to basically have a bunch of people talking about this aswell and expanding their thoughts on the game.

 

anyway good debates on hunger guys and great thread. hopefully the devs will see this (:D)

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ent|ty said:

The problem is what seems to be a large group of players (in any Early Access game forum) always trying to turn every game into exact replicas of each other, which frankly makes it boring. Astroneer got my attention because it ISNT just another survival game.

Yes, I'm seeing this too.

Also see a lot of new early access games that are pretty much just like some other game, but one tiny aspect is different. I can only guess those indie devs had played the other game, saw something they didnt like, and thought 'we can make this, but better!' and then proceed to copy, with just the one thing changed.

TLD drives me up the wall too. I've been hanging on for story mode for so long now, I've forgotten (which you reminded me) the original intent.

I posted somewhere, heck, I may have posted a hypocritical thread, on hunger, and how one thing I did find a bit nice when I first started Astroneer, which was 'a sense of calm', no panic rush to jamb my face with food or drink.

27 minutes ago, PilotChan said:

if the people who dont want hunger dont want it then they should play creative mode in astroneer.

And this... yeah, well FU too ;)

I don't want to be forced into creative mode (which kills all sense of adventure and exploration at second 1), just because I'm not a hard core survivalist. Thankfully I dont have to worry, based on developer feedback on this subject.

Edited by Frigidman
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Yes, I'm seeing this too.

Also see a lot of new early access games that are pretty much just like some other game, but one tiny aspect is different. I can only guess those indie devs had played the other game, saw something they didnt like, and thought 'we can make this, but better!' and then proceed to copy, with just the one thing changed.

TLD drives me up the wall too. I've been hanging on for story mode for so long now, I've forgotten (which you reminded me) the original intent.

I posted somewhere, heck, I may have posted a hypocritical thread as well, on hunger, and how one thing I did find a bit nice when I first started Astroneer, which was 'a sense of calm', no panic rush to jamb my face with food or drink.

And this... yeah, well FU too ;)

I don't want to be forced into creative mode (which kills all sense of adventure and exploration at second 1), just because I'm not a hard core survivalist. Thankfully I dont have to worry, based on developer feedback on this subject.

 

No offense taken but i guess my choice of wording it was a bit...off.

perhaps a difficulty or something could help players who have trouble with hunger.

(FUTOOBUDDY)

 

+1 <3

 

(70thpostwoo)

Edited by PilotChan
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ent|ty said:

Then next we will want pets and animals.

That's like arguing that gay marriage leads to people marrying pets, it's not reasonable discussion.

You don't want hunger because you think it's tedious and annoying, we get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted the following in the other thread, and thought I'd just leave it here, too, as it might be of interest to some.

Please note, that I didn't have the time to read this Thread yet.

Quote

 

So let me play devils advocate, and do that, hich I would have expected from the pro-hunger faction here (instead of throwing in vague words without any decription like farming, realism and challange) and try to come up with an interesting hunger mechanic, that tries to add to the current gameplay, without coming in the way, penalizing exploring to much or serve as a long term oxygen like system, and could fit the general Astroneers theme in my opinion.

The main Premises for this concept are:

1. Gameplay first: Add a rewarding and challenging mechanic without hindering gameplay

2. stay as optional as possible and only as forced as minimal possible

 

Instead of a simple stat for "hunger" this part is split up in different values for Proteins, Dairy, grain, vegtables and fruits. Those stats are not directly visible to the player, though a suit addon that keeps track of what the player consumes would be imaginable, and maybe even preferable. This way those who want to min max it have to pay for it with valuable backpack space. The break up into different stats instead of a simple "hunger" bar allows for a more intresting farming and buffing system, which I will come back to. We assume that the most basic food need is fullfilled by the spacesuit technology. If you don't want the added challenge, you don't need to, but participating will have some benefits, that will depend on how varied your diet is. Furthermore different planetary environments will make it more difficult to fullfill the needs to the maximum, so the player can claim the bragging rights to have maxed his food for x days under the hardest conditions. This could further be supplemented with Achievements etc. Typically these players love their achievements.

While players that don't participate are not penalized, and can continue their normal gameplay, Players that participate can earn different buffs. These buffs are tied to the different food categories. ie having eaten lots of fruits could make you faster, while drinking lots of milk (and thus dairy) could make you more resilient to fall damage (because of the calcium, which is good for your bones, my grandma told me so. ;P). Those buffs grow exponential to the amount of food of that category you have eaten. Having only eaten one apple does give you barely anything, keeping your bar at max has a very big effect. Either new buffs could be added for having a combination of bars at max, or the effects could be further amplified.

To make things not to easy, you can only eat so much per time period. This could be modified by your activities, but not neccessarily.

About Farming. Each planet has only a subset of the food categories. Furthermore some of them might be easier found in deep caves, and some are easier found on the top of mountains. Have the best sources of the respective categories be hard to find. Furthermore all thigns only grow under certain conditions. There shouldn't be a way to just set up a big farm on terran and be set for max food values. If at all, getting all your food stuff growing in one place, should be a massive undertaking, that needs a lot of work, exploring and research.

 

Well, this is the basic concept. Certainly incomplete in some regards, but it should give a good Idea, how to make an interesting system that is not just a more long tterm version of oxygen.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Frigidman said:

However after 8 pages of posts (combined), I am starting to see a pattern of repeated reasoning now. 

My reasoning is simple, I like the idea of adding a little more realism to the game and I'm willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt that they can handle an implementation that doesn't trigger people. Other folks want to go out of their way to trash the idea, bringing along baggage from other games and politics. From my experience that's nowhere close to constructive discussion to come to creative solutions and help the game development progress.

The devs get my vote of confidence, no matter their choice. They rock B|

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PilotChan said:

Im the type of person that says hunger please. if the people who dont want hunger dont want it then they should play creative mode in astroneer.

leave survival mode to the hardcore players and creative to the comfy casual players.

Usually I wouldn't say this, but this is a very ignorant statement. 

Having hunger in a game doesn't make it hardcore.. hardcore is 1 life.. die, end of game.

There can be advantages to having hunger in a game, more content, more depth.  I've explained my feelings on this in other threads.  Of a similar discussion.

But just because someone doesn't want hunger, doesn't mean they should be relegated to not even playing the game.

Personally, I like the hunger mechanic and I think it would add depth, I understand why people don't want it.  End of the day, we don't get to decide, but it should never be a case of "don't like it, theres the door". That's such an ignorant way of talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, travin said:

That's like arguing that gay marriage leads to people marrying pets, it's not reasonable discussion.

You don't want hunger because you think it's tedious and annoying, we get it.

Off Topic.. but I'd like a little gremlin pet..

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Martin said:

Usually I wouldn't say this, but this is a very ignorant statement. 

Having hunger in a game doesn't make it hardcore.. hardcore is 1 life.. die, end of game.

There can be advantages to having hunger in a game, more content, more depth.  I've explained my feelings on this in other threads.  Of a similar discussion.

But just because someone doesn't want hunger, doesn't mean they should be relegated to not even playing the game.

Personally, I like the hunger mechanic and I think it would add depth, I understand why people don't want it.  End of the day, we don't get to decide, but it should never be a case of "don't like it, theres the door". That's such an ignorant way of talking.

well excuse me.

 

Not the way i wanted it to sound but i do agree that segmenting a portion of players off would be a bad idea.

 

however the topic of hunger does seem 50/50 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, travin said:

My reasoning is simple, I like the idea of adding a little more realism to the game and I'm willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt that they can handle an implementation that doesn't trigger people. Other folks want to go out of their way to trash the idea, bringing along baggage from other games and politics. From my experience that's nowhere close to constructive discussion to come to creative solutions and help the game development progress.

The devs get my vote of confidence, no matter their choice. They rock B|

Exactly!

And Jacob's response was right on par with that, and which is why I believe what he is thinking, will come out pretty ... well ... "FUN".

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Exactly!

And Jacob's response was right on par with that, and which is why I believe what he is thinking, will come out pretty ... well ... "FUN".

Need a hat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Martin said:

Need a hat?

No, just a tissue. Reading people trying to make a point by reaching to the absurd extremes is making me cry.

"if you dont want hunger, just rip out everything then!"

"if you want hunger, add the whole spectrum of ultra-realism then!"

"weh!"

Plus I already got a hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin said:

Off Topic.. but I'd like a little gremlin pet..

It's funny in Rimworld where potted plants have a "beauty" score and makes colonists feel happy. Similar with pets, like rats.

Edited by travin
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

No, just a tissue. Reading people trying to make a point by reaching to the absurd extremes is making me cry.

"if you dont want hunger, just rip out everything then!"

"if you want hunger, add the whole spectrum of ultra-realism then!"

"weh!"

Plus I already got a hat.

Oh that's a hat..

Yeh, it's an issue to try to explain fully.  I don't think you need to have realism in a game like astroneer, ie you don't need 3 square meals a day. 

But lets say, we have hunger.  We have thirst.  It's a timesink, you take damage, you hurt yourself from falling, you sprint alot because you don't like using tethers..

You use your food supply faster.. you have to eat more and drink more or learn to play safely.   So.. we eat and drink.. which means we need food and water.

Which means we need the research to get better food, to find water, to store food and water, more research items.  Items to carry food/water more content.

Farming, types of farms, locations of farms, researchables.  Output, higher output by location, challenge of building in locations.  Different soil types, challenges of getting soil from different locations, transport of soil, finding seeds, planting, irrigation.. harvesting, turning harvested items into food.  Mixing foods producing better foods.

Making healing kits, making protection potions, making body armour, better suit protections, endurance buffs and so on..

Or.. lets not have hunger and we have:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 8:58 PM, SES_Jacob said:

I agree with the sentiments about how it would be silly to add another bar to the game/backpack indicating how hungry the Astroneer is and then just kill them when it hits zero. Makes me wonder if there wasn't a more interesting and interactive way to incorporate the benefits from eating. For example, offering slight upgrades to different parameters of the Astro's functioning, such as speed, fall damage, and resilience to hostile elements such as cold. It's conceivable that hunger could also eventually kill you, but given that the player respawns (the game's relatively unpunishing death mechanic) you would just regain the ability to go for hours without eating again.

I agree that your gameplay is changed by skill building and resource gathering, which includes hunger and water. Does it kill you? Maybe. Can it enhance your character and provide it with a different skill/tech tree, why not?

Folks can involve themselves in the different worlds and mechanics as it suits their purposes and way of doing things. My excitement is how people could specialize their equipment and performance based upon their choices and environment. Something I introduced as an idea in the schema of different solar systems is materials or equipment conversion. Different planets/stars could have a unique set of materials that either need to be converted or produces unique equipment, giving them different capabilities.

Nobody has to choose to interact with these different mechanics, tech development trees or unique solar systems, but they can exercise those choices while still allowing others to make different choices. There's this idea many have that whatever tools are included must be used, and homogenous absolutes amongst all players. When instead we can all play variations of the same game, with skills and capabilities that work for each player. There could be players that have adapted their skills and tech to irradiated environments, others only for Terra, others for artic climates. Whatever flavor they want.

Btw, seasons, climate and solar exposure specific skills, tech and fauna would be very cool.

Edited by travin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10.01.2017 at 5:58 AM, SES_Jacob said:

I agree with the sentiments about how it would be silly to add another bar to the game/backpack indicating how hungry the Astroneer is and then just kill them when it hits zero.

Astroneer should survive longer without eating than drinking / sleeping. The first symptoms of thirst / starving / sleepiness would be fatigue, then slow death. Instead of the well-known indicators there should be emoji messages.

Well fed player should be more efficient (better, faster, stronger).

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Martin said:

Oh that's a hat..

Yeh, it's an issue to try to explain fully.  I don't think you need to have realism in a game like astroneer, ie you don't need 3 square meals a day. 

But lets say, we have hunger.  We have thirst.  It's a timesink, you take damage, you hurt yourself from falling, you sprint alot because you don't like using tethers..

You use your food supply faster.. you have to eat more and drink more or learn to play safely.   So.. we eat and drink.. which means we need food and water.

Which means we need the research to get better food, to find water, to store food and water, more research items.  Items to carry food/water more content.

Farming, types of farms, locations of farms, researchables.  Output, higher output by location, challenge of building in locations.  Different soil types, challenges of getting soil from different locations, transport of soil, finding seeds, planting, irrigation.. harvesting, turning harvested items into food.  Mixing foods producing better foods.

Making healing kits, making protection potions, making body armour, better suit protections, endurance buffs and so on..

Or.. lets not have hunger and we have:

 

You could have the last 1 or 2 without hunger. Definitely the last one. The farming one could be for things other than food, like being able to "plant" research nodes to grow trees that give you more research nodes... even when you run out of "research" it can be a faster way to acquire high-value resources, instead of the whole hydrazine-trading process that should really be making hydrazine worth less than the terrain. (Not that I'm complaining about it ;), but it will have to be nerfed again once we have other things to trade.)

 

I like some of the ideas for hunger, but if SE is trying to make Astroneer reach out to as many people as possible they're going to want it to have a "scaling" like what they seem to be doing with everything else. On Terran its not necessary to immediately go out and start eating or drinking or w/e.... but once you start going on to other planets the difficulty should ramp up a little bit. On Arid? Drink more, but you can sustain hunger a little better. On Radiated? Make sure you're inside a building or your food/water will become too radioactive to use. On Barren? Eat more, but there's less need to drink... etc. etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:58 PM, SES_Jacob said:

I agree with the sentiments about how it would be silly to add another bar to the game/backpack indicating how hungry the Astroneer is and then just kill them when it hits zero. Makes me wonder if there wasn't a more interesting and interactive way to incorporate the benefits from eating. For example, offering slight upgrades to different parameters of the Astro's functioning, such as speed, fall damage, and resilience to hostile elements such as cold.

I could see this working as your farm/synthesizer/food printer producing stacks of various "food materials". For example (and a bad example at that) you could input Organics and receive a stack of Apple Pie which, when in your backpack, gives you cold resistance when needed until it is depleted (similar to how energy and oxygen stacks deplete)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, interesting:

Can we have Hunger, without farming tech/mechanics?
Not really, unless all food to eat is 'found' on the ground naturally (which dwindles, and eventually vanishes, causing an end of game situation).

Can we having farming and growing things, without Hunger?
Yes. Because farming things can be for various other needs other than just filling up a hunger bar; Healing, Buffs, Negate negative conditions, biofuels lol.

So, because we add farming, does that mean we MUST add Hunger?
I think that is the debate here...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frigidman said:

Ah, interesting:

Can we have Hunger, without farming tech/mechanics?
Not really, unless all food to eat is 'found' on the ground naturally (which dwindles, and eventually vanishes, causing an end of game situation).

Can we having farming and growing things, without Hunger?
Yes. Because farming things can be for various other needs other than just filling up a hunger bar; Healing, Buffs, Negate negative conditions, biofuels lol.

So, because we add farming, does that mean we MUST add Hunger?
I think that is the debate here...

This is basically what I'm trying to say. I'm pretty sure the thing people usually enjoy about food in games is farming. Most don't ENJOY having a hunger bar that they need to keep above 0%. And you can have farming without a hunger bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead