No to hunger


MoonManKelvin

Recommended Posts

This shouldn't be an ARGUMENT, some of these threads get far more heated then they really need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well, that's the ultimate get out clause isn't it?  We're all just giving our opinions.  There is no right or wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r3wired said:

This shouldn't be an ARGUMENT, some of these threads get far more heated then they really need to be.

Eh? Arguments don't need to get heated, people get heated.  I'm calm and collected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martin said:

Eh? Arguments don't need to get heated, people get heated.  I'm calm and collected.

haha. Most read lie on internet forums ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I skipped over a couple pages there after reading the same thing over and over. I'm seeing a divide and skewing off topic.

This topic (and the duplicate topic) is about "Hunger". That is a precursor to being malnourished and ultimately death. Hunger happens gradually so long as you do not consume nutrients. Hunger is a slow game dynamic which is nothing more than a reducing value, raised by using a consumable object.

This topic is really not about "Foods" (aka Growables aka Farming)... which can be a game dynamic that represents many multiple different needs and outcomes (not all growables are for nutrients). Some foods do satisfy 'hunger', but the hunger mechanic can also easily be satisfied by 'nutrient paste' which is just mash made by the suit from any bio-source picked up.

If we are going to debate about the need/gameplay of adding Foods and Farming (not specifically related to A Hunger Mechanic), we need to make a third topic for that.

 

So ... if we stay on the sole topic of "No to Hunger" ... what is your pro/con list for/against such?

First off, this is NOT a bare-bones survival game (like The Long Dark, the only game I've played where hunger is a core game mechanic that works)... where you are thrust into the wilderness with nothing but two sticks and a stone. Where every day of 'survival' is hunting for a rare piece of food, to consume and try to stay alive for one more day managing your calorie levels and fending off disease.

When this game is introduces farming and growing things, that immediately negates any real needs to maintain a 'hunger bar'. An astroneer is going to have so much food than they could possibly consume. It is quickly not about "oh dear, I need to scrounge up a dead mouse for dinner", but rather "im a fat cat with a storeroom full of food to last a year". At this point any 'hunger' mechanic is put on the sidelines and only becomes a nagging reminder to stuff ones face with a cheeseburger through their suit holes.

Hunger by itself adds nothing to gameplay value for me in a game that is not a strict survival game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nordish said:

Add hunger as a reason to justify a farming system and to provide additional bonuses is illogical. You just don't run 50% faster or breath less because you are eating a fruit or a steak. So the farming system would be better connected with extra material to strengthen your suit or increase processes in the production system or increase battery capacity

 
 

Hunger to justify farming? No thanks imo. That's been done to death and it turns into a UI bar management mini-game. No one can argue otherwise -even if one likes it, it's still what it is.

But the suggestions you propose seem a little out of the scope of the game and a bit too deep. That sounds more like a Star Citizen level type of mechanic. Astroneer has a very approachable entry-level and adding that kind of depth just feels counter to it -don't get me wrong, it's cool but, too much. Eating/Drinking foods to help with O2 or Energy might not seem Spock logical, but this is a video game where we romanticize things for entertainment and not so much for realism like a simulator (Which is why Star Wars, The Martian and even Game of Thrones are so popular right?).

Good thing is that Astroneer has snagged the attention of a very wide demographic of survival/space players. But now SES needs to choose which way the game is going to go; theres no way they are going to be able to appease everyone. The thread has some fair points made by each side on a traditional hunger system. But I think it has devolved into an argument over semantics at this point instead of a debate on the actual pro/cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Sorry, I skipped over a couple pages there after reading the same thing over and over. I'm seeing a divide and skewing off topic.

This topic (and the duplicate topic) is about "Hunger". That is a precursor to being malnourished and ultimately death. Hunger happens gradually so long as you do not consume nutrients. Hunger is a slow game dynamic which is nothing more than a reducing value, raised by using a consumable object.

This topic is really not about "Foods" (aka Growables aka Farming)... which can be a game dynamic that represents many multiple different needs and outcomes (not all growables are for nutrients). Some foods do satisfy 'hunger', but the hunger mechanic can also easily be satisfied by 'nutrient paste' which is just mash made by the suit from any bio-source picked up.

If we are going to debate about the need/gameplay of adding Foods and Farming (not specifically related to A Hunger Mechanic), we need to make a third topic for that.

 

So ... if we stay on the sole topic of "No to Hunger" ... what is your pro/con list for/against such?

First off, this is NOT a bare-bones survival game (like The Long Dark, the only game I've played where hunger is a core game mechanic that works)... where you are thrust into the wilderness with nothing but two sticks and a stone. Where every day of 'survival' is hunting for a rare piece of food, to consume and try to stay alive for one more day managing your calorie levels and fending off disease.

When this game is introduces farming and growing things, that immediately negates any real needs to maintain a 'hunger bar'. An astroneer is going to have so much food than they could possibly consume. It is quickly not about "oh dear, I need to scrounge up a dead mouse for dinner", but rather "im a fat cat with a storeroom full of food to last a year". At this point any 'hunger' mechanic is put on the sidelines and only becomes a nagging reminder to stuff ones face with a cheeseburger through their suit holes.

Hunger by itself adds nothing to gameplay value for me in a game that is not a strict survival game.

 

holy shit that fedora.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DragonAstroneer said:


A crazy idea came into my head. Playable dream during sleep.

Watching how the player asleep would be boring as hell but imagine that you can do some crazy things during sleep. Imagine the colorful planet with completely unrealistic physics. Even scary nightmare would be great idea.

Waking dreams or nightmares as minigames and skill builders.

We're so off topic, hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Martin said:

There's no point in trading insults.

As for the rest, so what if there's a timesink in oxygen? As pointed out, it's an almost inconsequential timesink.   The loss of time due to it is almost none existant and power, once you get a base up and running or a couple of trucks, never becomes an issue.

Hunger, would be an ongoing and continuous issue.  It could be reduced by building a decent base, bigger farms etc, but not necessarily removed.   Games need timesinks.  They need moneysinks. 

The next topic for discussion will likely be currency.  Which brings with it a whole new level of baggage.

 

 

 

As I've been saying, I don't see this doom and gloom scenario where a hunger system must be a time sink. It absolutely doesn't have to be that way.

For example, we''ve seen people expending huge amounts of energy and sinking their time into producing huge amounts of hydrazine. this takes manual work to press the activate button, to store and organize all of the canisters, building fuel production modules, storage pods, solar panels and batteries to power them. The one thing you don't see is people complaining about such a huge amount of work because it has a payoff and it's engaging.

The same can apply to a hunger system. You may have never seen that in a game, you may not yet be able to envision creative ideas to make a hunger system have that level of engagement and payoff, but it is indeed possible. And I invite everyone to solve that problem instead of simply saying it can't possibly work. It can work and there is a way. We just haven't come up with it yet.

And before someone gets the bright idea to argue with me based upon a literal breakdown and critique of my comparison to producing hydrazine, forget about it, you're missing the point of the example. This isn't about argument, it's about finding solutions to help the devs in their vision to make this game we care about so much even more awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, travin said:

And before someone gets the bright idea to argue with me based upon a literal breakdown and critique of my comparison to producing hydrazine... forget about it...

... oh darnit.

;) 

---

The trouble I come across when trying to flesh out an idea of a decent hunger system, is once I think of an angle that might work, I think of ways people will shit all over the idea. Valid or extremist, I toss on that idea. I know I'm not entirely thrilled about another meter-bar to monitor in THIS game (I enjoy it in games like Subnautica, TLD, Empyrion...), but I am not entirely against it either so long as its not a 'toss in' mechanic to shut people up about hunger.

Can we recap?

What have been the arguments FOR (with examples how it can work well)

What have been the arguments AGAINST (with examples why lack of hunger is better)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Can we recap?

What have been the arguments FOR (with examples how it can work well)

What have been the arguments AGAINST (with examples why lack of hunger is better)

I still don't even get why there is an argument about it.

Power and oxygen are things you need to gather, store and consume. it's easy to do all three. Once you gather it it's either in your pack or available through your tether, and it gradually goes away. Hunger can be no different in implementation. There's no real argument about power and oxygen, so there shouldn't be one with hunger either. It could easily be just a third element that you gather, store, goes away gradually and is automagically available in your pack or through a tether. Simple, uncontroversial and entirely consistent with how this game already works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, travin said:

I still don't even get why there is an argument about it.

Power and oxygen are things you need to gather, store and consume. it's easy to do all three. Once you gather it it's either in your pack or available through your tether, and it gradually goes away. Hunger can be no different in implementation. There's no real argument about power and oxygen, so there shouldn't be one with hunger either. It could easily be just a third element that you gather, store and goes away gradually. Simple, uncontroversial and entirely consistent with how this game already works.

Truth. But Power and Oxygen are both "infinite supply" when tethered to large equipment. This is where suspension of disbelief vanishes when someone proposes 'Hunger'. As it suggests it will not be infinite while tethered (since nutrients apparently cannot be made out of thin air like power and oxygen??). 

I think this love/hate with hunger is, it is being considered as a timed chore to deal with in continued gameplay. You could not stand there in your base, go eat dinner IRL, come back, and still be alive in game ;)

But suggesting that nutrients ARE infinite while tethered, riles the attention of realists and then the fights start all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frigidman said:

Truth. But Power and Oxygen are both "infinite supply" when tethered to large equipment. This is where suspension of disbelief vanishes when someone proposes 'Hunger'. As it suggests it will not be infinite while tethered (since nutrients apparently cannot be made out of thin air like power and oxygen??). 

I think this love/hate with hunger is, it is being considered as a timed chore to deal with in continued gameplay. You could not stand there in your base, go eat dinner IRL, come back, and still be alive in game ;)

But suggesting that nutrients ARE infinite while tethered, riles the attention of realists and then the fights start all over again.

Power is not infinite. You have to do a lot of work and produce a lot equipment for it to appear to be infinite.

The "chore" idea is a false argument. It's a mental block. I don't see realists arguing that poop/pee/other bodily functions aren't accurately represented here, or that collecting power through a gun into little pellets isn't realistic, so realists have no reasonable argument with eating. There are absolutely no dictates that satisfying hunger means you have to stop everything you're doing and eat. It's a false argument.

Nutrition can be just as simple and automatic as consuming oxygen and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nordish said:

haha. Most read lie on internet forums ^^

I don't lie, I'm medicated.  I'm incapable of getting heated. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.

Hunger (Time sink) Mechanic (Reason to add Content) = More Fun. (Content can be individually broken down)[Eat/Drink, Production - Mine (Raw item) /Smelt (Component) /Product, Fuel - Mine or Condense/Product, Farming - Farm (non foods)/Product or Component/Product]

Hunger = Eating Food and Water only.

Hunger = Only relates to all other consumables. (Not Food and Water)[Oxygen [Not Created/Transported/Stored/Consumed], Power [Created/Transported/Stored/Consumed], Buffs, Improvements)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frigidman said:

Truth. But Power and Oxygen are both "infinite supply" when tethered to large equipment. This is where suspension of disbelief vanishes when someone proposes 'Hunger'. As it suggests it will not be infinite while tethered (since nutrients apparently cannot be made out of thin air like power and oxygen??). 

I think this love/hate with hunger is, it is being considered as a timed chore to deal with in continued gameplay. You could not stand there in your base, go eat dinner IRL, come back, and still be alive in game ;)

But suggesting that nutrients ARE infinite while tethered, riles the attention of realists and then the fights start all over again.

The No's are saying "i don't want to do more work" I just want everything handed to me, then I can go and claim I won a survival game. (Has to be completed in 15 hours)

The Yes's are saying "I need more challenge, I want more content" Eventually I might consider I've beaten a survival game. (Expects at least 60 hours of fun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Martin said:

The No's are saying "i don't want to do more work" I just want everything handed to me, then I can go and claim I won a survival game. (Has to be completed in 15 hours)

The Yes's are saying "I need more challenge, I want more content" Eventually I might consider I've beaten a survival game. (Expects at least 60 hours of fun)

That's not quite accurate. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Martin said:

The No's are saying "i don't want to do more work" I just want everything handed to me, then I can go and claim I won a survival game. (Has to be completed in 15 hours)

The Yes's are saying "I need more challenge, I want more content" Eventually I might consider I've beaten a survival game. (Expects at least 60 hours of fun)

That's just as wrong as it could be and just proves you do not read my and other replies. So you ignore what I write. No point to talk with you further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has gone to shit you guys. Can we please stop complaining about how hunger will ruin the game and start reasonably discussing what could go in it's place or ways to improve upon it. Astroneer is an extremely unique game and the 6 developers could probably implement tons of features(including hunger) in many unique ways.  So let's band together(sounds cheesy I know) and discuss solutions relative to hunger. My question would be, if the need to eat is not implemented, is power and oxygen really enough to sustain a difficult internal environment and maintain semi-realism(have you seen how epic their gravity is sometimes). Since the act of farming isn't something that appeals to all players, what other ways can they add a sense of space colonization and once automation comes around will farming and acquiring food really be as bad as people say it is? 

14 hours ago, Martin said:

Hunger doesn't give a benefit, it introduces other content that does, content that adds more benefits than what hunger takes away.   Hunger is purely a time sink.  It's to slow you down.

Honestly I doubt you would really care if hunger was added to the game, or are you in a rush to collect ores and research? Take a few second break to enjoy the beautifully designed environment, absorb some space nutrients, and be on your way. Maybe the nutrients is absorbed through the tethers and you never have to worry about anything or maybe that's how it was all along. Also one dude was talking about asking for a refund if Astroneer had hunger? You are acting like all the people who said if Donald Trump was president they would move to Canada. My finals words are, I would be perfectly fine with System Era just saying "Hunger? But you guys were absorbing it through those tethers of yours, you silly astronauts!" Maybe all you need for food is a piece of organic attached to a tiny little food module that slowly gives you food overtime(For maybe half an hour or so per organic) through the tethers. But if System Era did add hunger I would sure hope to god they add farming because in my opinion it would be fun to just relax while my buds go exploring and I work on expanding the base and do a bit of farming. Also can you guys start relaxing a bit and maturely discuss this hunger matter with constructive criticism. I'm sure there are some things you may disagree with in my suggestions and I would be open to hear what you guys have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Baby Panda Jr, said:

This topic has gone to shit you guys. Can we please stop complaining about how hunger will ruin the game and start reasonably discussing what could go in it's place or ways to improve upon it.

+5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, How about we start with what we have.  And work out from there?

We have:

Oxygen. (Transport, Consumable)

Power. (Production, Storage, Transport, Consumable)

Production. (Takes Resources from Grinding [mining] turns them into things, modules, vehicles)

Damage. (from plants, falling, storm)

Exploration. (Wandering around, Sat Mini Game)

Research. (necessary for production of things)

Building random things (Racetracks, Bridges to nowhere, etc)

 

We don't have:

Food/Water (Eating)

Farming.

Missions/Goal.

Buffs, Improvements (To current status quo, backpack, vehicles)

Currency.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.