taking a shower in Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't give the player any kind of bonus

[Tarille]

Doesn't make much sense to me... It's like saying BG3 is an RPG so combat aren't the main gameplay and so doesn't have to be turn based.

I mean... That is literally true.

Nothing about BG3 necessitates its combat to be turn based. Heck, it's not even like any other BG titles are... BG 1 & 2 are RTwP and Dark Alliance 1 & 2 (And the crappy reboot) are ARPG...

Survival elements in KCD 2 aren't just here for "survival", they are a part of the RPG.

That they have some element of impacting the RPG side of things (Especially when it comes to NPC interactions) doesn't mean they're not still suvival mechanics.

Nor does it stop them from being side mechanics - Not when the main things you get pushed into doing in the game are quests.

I don't think they too frequent in the game...

Which is your opinion.

My opinion is they are, or can be, too frequent. Especially how quickly Henry gets dirty for seemingly no reason. Which can get super annoying when you're just wandering around trying to talk to people but have to continually find places to wash because you get filthy by merely existing...

Also keep in mind, at this point in my comment I was talking about games in general, not just KCD. There are many games that feature these types of mechanics and they usually end up occuring way too frequently to the point of annoyance.

Things like in Fallout: New Vegas, weapons are apparently made out of paper mache with how quickly they disintegrate. In the recent S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 game their guns start jamming after like 10 shots rather than the 1000+ their real life equivalents take... You have bunches of "Suvival" slop games where hunger and thirst are so bad you don't get to do much other than hunt for food/water endlessly.

Even if these are "Once a day" things... Typical video game day/night cycles are around 15-20 minutes. Meaning these are things you have to do every few minutes of gameplay. Though often these things are tied to merely a few in-game hours, meaning they occur every 5-10 minutes...

Which is one of the issues with "Survival" mechanics in video games. Game universes are condensed down to be more practical for the average users game time. This means that survival mechanics are also condensed in order to be somewhat "Logical", this vastly increases their overall impact on gameplay.

This is where the whole "Penalties" vs "Benefits" aspect comes in for RPG's. Penalties for not interacting with these things, means players have to interact with these systems and do so as frequently as they occur. Benefits for interacting with these things means players can simply ignore them if they wish, but have an extra incentive (Beyond just RPing) to interact with them.

In addtion, there is the factor of how obtrusive such interactions are. For example, having to go back to an apartment in CP2077 to shower/sleep every in-game day (Or rather, night) will detract a lot from normal gameplay (Especially if someone doesn't quickly buy every additional apartment across the city). While eating food once a day isn't so bad because there are vendors all over the place as well as the ability to carry around tons of food (But then it doesn't add much to the immersion if all it will normally equate to is every few minutes of gameplay, you open your inventory and click on a few food items. Due to video game characters innate ability to conusme hundreds of cheese wheels in an instant)

At the end of the day, it's all about balancing immersion vs annoyance. Not just for "Survival" mechanics, but many other "Realism" based features.

 

[Spockprime]

Though the main contention is simply how quickly this mess builds up.

Like, even after a week of military training (Off-site, so no showers) I wasn't ever as messy as Henry gets after a couple of hours.

Even in regards to smell... It takes time for sweat to smell (Since it's not actually the sweat itself, but bacteria gorging on the stale sweat - If it never goes stale because you're constantly active, it doesn't start to smell)

Which is a general theme for much of these "Realistic" systems, they're all made unrealistic because of being made vastly more frequent due to video game mcguffins...

Characters dying of hunger after a few hours (Rather than the months it takes in real life), dying of thirst in a few minutes (Rather than days it takes in real life), becoming filthy in moments (When it can take a month or more to get super filthy in real life if not actively diving into muck), or even guns jamming after a few shots (When even the most crappy real life guns last hundreds to thousands of shots without needing maintenance - Even if you literally shove them into a bucket of dirt)

Like even if we consider video game day/night cycles being faster (So that people playing can actually experience them), many of these things are still hyper accelerated to the point of ridiculousness.

This frequency not only takes away from the immersion, but also then translates directly into annoyance for the player. As they then have to nanny their character by dealing with all these issues, detracting from the actual gameplay.

All good points. But it doesn't bother me much personally. Despite the massive size of some of these open world maps, everything is still massively compressed. Henry can cross Bohemia in a half hour or so, and a couple of minutes or so between most towns. Bohemia isn't a huge geographical area, but it's a lot bigger than that. So, the time compression is not realistic, but it fits the scale somewhat. Also (taking the cheap way out of the discussion), I play with mods to lengthen the amount of time it takes to get hungry or dirty, which allows me to tweak the frustration of the system.

 

[SigilFey]

So for me, it's not so much whether there's a bonus, but more of a well done immersion feature...

Same. I love the concept, but...

Though the main contention is simply how quickly this mess builds up....

...this. It's just too frequent for it to remain enjoyable. It's also a bit immersion breaking, as Henry always looks like he's literally just done 4 hours of pull-ups between rolling in the mud with several really active dogs. If it built up over, say, a full in-game week per "level" of dirty, I think that would make things much more enjoyable.

In a way that is how it is done in movies as well. When they show such scenes it is to add to the content in some way...

This is a totally different consideration. What you say is exactly it -- a "shower scene" is meant as a moment of vulnerability to raise tension, a moment of disengagement to release tension (specifically so that it can be raised again,) or somehow symbolic/world-building. It's the same with any scene that might involve a character relieving themselves, cooking, changing clothes, getting a haircut, etc.

For immersion purposes in video games, it probably should serve a purpose for gameplay/mechanics. (Still possible to have a scene, too, as part of the narrative.)

To be fair, taking care about your character needs (food, drink, sleep, clothes and weapons conditions,...) is a part of the actual gameplay in KCD 2 and is fully integrated in the whole game (as much as it is in Valheim in a quite different way), so I think if you find this as an annoyance, it's clearly not a game for you

Gotta reinforce the sheer frequency of needing to deal with it. Valheim handles it perfectly -- my opinion, of course -- insofar as you'll only ever spend about 20% of your time worrying about "eating." Sure, getting a farm going takes some doing (which I would argue is a particular gameplay milestone,) but once you have things rolling, you only ever need to interact with it occasionally. (I stockpile, but that's wholly not needed.) The crux is, I can only get stronger by spending more time on it, so it rewards my focus and efficiency, but doesn't penalize me in any way for not having everything absolutely maxed. And I can't starve to death, only get in trouble if I forget to eat something.

For things in KCD1, it was just too intrusive, visually and in gameplay. It felt like I couldn't do 2 things in a row without Henry getting filthy, feeling hungry, or starting to get tired. I went hunting for mods (just now -- I was curious) and found one that allows you to customize how quickly dirt, hunger, and exhaustion build up. I definitely don't enjoy the vanilla values, and coupled with the dialogue issue, I just couldn't do it. I'll probably try again, soon, using the mod. I llloooOOOoooved the combat concept. If I don't have to deal with the dirty/tummy/sleepy stuff so much, I might actually be able to grit my teeth through the dialogue and enjoy the rest of the game.


_______________


As for the rest of the convo from that point, it's really hard (I would argue: absolutely impossible) to ever balance dissonant gameplay elements in such a way as there will not be significant disagreements throughout a player base. So, I raise the same argument that I made all the way back in the early TW3 days:

"Let the player decide."

As a developer, don't try to craft a specific experience according to a pre-determined "ideal balance," but rather try to introduce mechanics that players can engage with or not. Provide options. Examples:

• Don't sheath/unsheath or switch my weapons automatically by design. Give me the option to use that feature.
• Don't force me to stare at glowing trails, map markers, and icons hovering above quest locations. Give me the option of toggling that sort of help on or off.
• Don't force my character to dress in exaggerated, late game armors and clothing to gain its benefits. Give me the option of making the gear look like I want my character to look.
• Don't force me to eat and drink every 20 minutes in my narrative Action/RPG. Give me the option of eating and drinking for a bonus. Or, give me the option of playing with survival mechanics reduced/off.
• Don't start penalizing my character for not remembering to click on a shower nozzle every single day (...and potentially sitting through an animation over and over again.) Give me the option of showering for some sort of benefit.

When games are designed with the core concept of letting players choose what sort of experience they're looking for, you wind up with really happy players. If I want a hardcore, survival experience where one bullet or forgetting to take a vitamin pill can end my ironman mode playthrough, I can choose that. If I want to spam "light-attack" through every boss battle while simultaneously checking my phone in the other hand, I can choose that, too. Let the player decide.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Gotta reinforce the sheer frequency of needing to deal with it. Valheim handles it perfectly -- my opinion, of course -- insofar as you'll only ever spend about 20% of your time worrying about "eating." Sure, getting a farm going takes some doing (which I would argue is a particular gameplay milestone,) but once you have things rolling, you only ever need to interact with it occasionally. (I stockpile, but that's wholly not needed.) The crux is, I can only get stronger by spending more time on it, so it rewards my focus and efficiency, but doesn't penalize me in any way for not having everything absolutely maxed. And I can't starve to death, only get in trouble if I forget to eat something.

For things in KCD1, it was just too intrusive, visually and in gameplay. It felt like I couldn't do 2 things in a row without Henry getting filthy, feeling hungry, or starting to get tired. I just went hunting for mods and found one that allows you to customize how quickly dirt, hunger, and exhaustion build up. I definitely don't enjoy the vanilla values, and coupled with the dialogue issue, I just couldn't do it. I'll probably try again, soon, using the mod. I llloooOOOoooved the combat concept. If I don't have to deal with the dirty/tummy/sleepy stuff so much, I might actually be able to grit my teeth through the dialogue and enjoy the rest of the game.

I fact, I think that even if both have different way to handle it, at the end they're not different
Sure in Valheim, you can't die if you're not eating. Yes it's not mandatory. Yes it doesn't really penalize you and it is somehow rewarding, but honestly... What could you really do without eating?
Close to nothing, because the wole game is "designed" around the food system.

The parry system is based on the maximum health you have. So without eating, you won't be able to parry/counter any attack. Without speaking about the fact that you will likely be one shot by any random mob (outside of Necks, Boars and Greylings).
The same with stamina, without eating it's so low that you can't run more than dozens meters, you can't plant 10 seeds in a row, can't shot one or two arrows, can't jump two or three times and so on... without being exausted.

So yes, after a while, in Valheim you unlock new food receipes which give you more health, more stamina and stay longer, but it's the same in KCD. After a while, you will unlock perks which allow you eat/drink/sleep/repair less often. Few examples :
- Ascetic > Food decrease 30% slower
- Contemplative > As long as you remain still (dialogue, reading, sleeping, waiting...), your Energy and Nourishment will reduce much more slowly.
- Thorough Maintenance > Your gear will be damaged 10 % slower
- Thorough Maintenance II > Your gear will take 20 % less damage.
- Hardened Steel > The weapons you forge will have excellent properties and will therefore take damage 20 % slower.

So pretty much like in Valheim, hunger/foods require special attention early game, but after a while, not so much. But instead of Valheim, you can buy foods in KCD2, food items which never spoil or almost and the cherry on top, you're the owner of a beloved horse named Pebbles who can carry everything you could need to avoid being overweighted.

I suspect you simply didn't played enough and find it annoying right at the beginning. Personally, quickly enough in the game, I just need to eat around twice or three times per day, sleep once, repair my stuff once and wash myself when I pass accross a troughs which are everywhere. Knowing a full day in KCD 1/2 is about 96 minutes IRL, it doesn't seem to be a big deal (at least for me).

 

[Tarille]

"Let the player decide."

As a developer, don't try to craft a specific experience according to a pre-determined "ideal balance," but rather try to introduce mechanics that players can engage with or not. Provide options.

When games are designed with the core concept of letting players choose what sort of experience they're looking for, you wind up with really happy players. If I want a hardcore, survival experience where one bullet or forgetting to take a vitamin pill can end my ironman mode playthrough, I can choose that. If I want to spam "light-attack" through every boss battle while simultaneously checking my phone in the other hand, I can choose that, too. Let the player decide.

The issue with such things is all these options demand additional development resources.

Like, it's all well and good to be like "Let us customize these 1000 different systems to our liking" but realistically, all those systems have to be implemented. Also, importantly, they all have to be tested and made sure they work well and fit with other settings to make the gameplay that someone picking them would want.

Even simple difficulty levels takes a decent amount of work. You can't just pick random stat modifiers to use and call it a day, you have to test things to make sure they fit the level of difficulty. No enemies too powerful on "Easy" and no enemies too weak (Or impossible to defeat) on "Very Hard". Meaning even this simple setting is equivalent to crafting multiple experiences all according to various pre-determined "Ideal balance".

It's why is so much easier to have a single pre-determined "Ideal balance" since you then just have to test the one version and if it meets your balance requirement, it's done. Then you leave players to figure if it's right for them or not.

Ideally, yes, we would have all sorts of things to toggle, sliders to adjust and myriads of systems to opt in or out of. But it all takes a lot more work to implement.

Which highlights the work that Owlcat puts into their games as they do feature this sort of thing, their difficulty options provide a lot of customization potential (Even if I just set them on the "Very Hard" default and leave them alone - Aside from WotR where I disabled negative army morale because I hate the stupid HoMM combat the army battles use so instead abused this setting to spend 20 years at the start of the campaign getting an army of 100k+ soldiers and archers to steamroll the sections)

Of course, this does come at a cost for Owlcat games. They're not the most pretty games (If you compare to CRPG's like say, BG3). They are also very linear experiences (You get a little bit of freedom in where you travel to - Whether you go for optional areas - as well as what order you take things but it's still very linear and the maps themselves are extremely linear). They also often come with tons of balance issues.

Interestingly, Owlcat themselves were actually questioning their decision to include this system. Shortly after Rogue Trader came out, they gave out surveys and one of the sections of it was all about how much one interacted with the customizable systems.

 

[SigilFey]

I fact, I think that even if both have different way to handle it, at the end they're not different
Sure in Valheim, you can't die if you're not eating. Yes it's not mandatory. Yes it doesn't really penalize you and it is somehow rewarding, but honestly... What could you really do without eating?
Close to nothing, because the wole game is "designed" around the food system.

The parry system is based on the maximum health you have. So without eating, you won't be able to parry/counter any attack. Without speaking about the fact that you will likely be one shot by any random mob (outside of Necks, Boars and Greylings).
The same with stamina, without eating it's so low that you can't run more than dozens meters, you can't plant 10 seeds in a row, can't shot one or two arrows, can't jump two or three times and so on... without being exausted.

So yes, after a while, in Valheim you unlock new food receipes which give you more health, more stamina and stay longer, but it's the same in KCD. After a while, you will unlock perks which allow you eat/drink/sleep/repair less often. Few examples :
- Ascetic > Food decrease 30% slower
- Contemplative > As long as you remain still (dialogue, reading, sleeping, waiting...), your Energy and Nourishment will reduce much more slowly.
- Thorough Maintenance > Your gear will be damaged 10 % slower
- Thorough Maintenance II > Your gear will take 20 % less damage.
- Hardened Steel > The weapons you forge will have excellent properties and will therefore take damage 20 % slower.

So pretty much like in Valheim, hunger/foods require special attention early game, but after a while, not so much. But instead of Valheim, you can buy foods in KCD2, food items which never spoil or almost and the cherry on top, you're the owner of a beloved horse named Pebbles who can carry everything you could need to avoid being overweighted.

I suspect you simply didn't played enough and find it annoying right at the beginning. Personally, quickly enough in the game, I just need to eat around twice or three times per day, sleep once, repair my stuff once and wash myself when I pass accross a troughs which are everywhere. Knowing a full day in KCD 1/2 is about 96 minutes IRL, it doesn't seem to be a big deal (at least for me).

Possibly, but I played through the first village, raid that results in all the personal tragedy, escape, running to the neighboring castle, waking up to listen to the lady, trying to get through the gate, and then the "graverobbing" quest. For that entire process, I was constantly impressed with many of the gameplay elements and "moments" the game was creating...but repeatedly faceplanting on the desk with the loaded, on-the-nose dialogue, constant annoyance with having to backtrack to eat, a bit frustrated with the lack of trial-and-error possible to learn mechanics (like lock-picking) without needing to reload-reload-reload (I'm not a save-scummer,) and sighing when Henry suddenly had dirt on his face and sweat-marks all over his clothing because I walked 15 paces. That's plenty of time to engage with a game overall and realize, "This is not fun or engaging for me. This is awkward and distracting. Not enjoying my time."

The key is that none of those aspects needed to be in the game. It's arbitrary design elements stacked upon the player that don't need to be so intrusive to accomplish the same goals. For me, it's literally the frequency with which all of the different elements interrupt the flow of the game. It's much, much too frequent for my tastes. I find it distracting in the extreme, not immersive.

The issue with such things is all these options demand additional development resources.

Not at all, in most cases. Yes, developing the actual system for tracking hunger, hygiene, exhaustion takes a little coding, but these are essentially layers on a baseline. So, I don't need to write a core simulation that accurately recreates a digestive system -- I just need to write a script that procs every so many ticks on the system clock and modifies a value by a set percentage. Even a very complex system for something like hunger (that incorporates different food types, vitamin levels, moment by moment degredation, different levels of starvation that affect multiple stats, etc.) will probably only involve 100 lines of code. That's...not even a full day of work. Add another few days of tweaking and testing just to make sure there's no glaring bugs. Tweaking these things takes seconds. It normally only requires changing a single value somewhere to make ticks or procs happen every 5 minutes instead of every 30 seconds. It's very direct.

(Sure, there are probably systems out there that are much, much more complex, but I'd argue such systems are drastically over-engineered. It's akin to those room-sized contraptions with ramps and fans and moving parts that...crack eggs. Just crack the egg. By hand.)


_______________



It all comes down to design choices. Many developers, like most artists, want to create something according to their vision. Which is fine, but it defeats the core purpose of the gaming medium -- customizability. I can't "edit the settings" of a movie, novel, song, painting, scultpture, live performance, etc. I absolutely can edit the settings of a video game. Making these things more customizable by default is inherently latching on to the unique medium.

Proof is in the pudding. Mods. Players don't want a dictated experience. They want a customizable experience. A huge number of "gameplay" related mods could simply be toggles that would take 5-10 minutes to add to a settings menu in the game itself.


_______________



Generally, I look at all artistic design as following the "shotgun on the mantlepiece" philosophy:

If I introduce a shotgun mounted on a mantlepiece over the fireplace as part of the establishing scene of a room, then at some point in the future, that shotgun needs to come into play in such a way as it drives the dramatic action of the piece toward its eventual conclusion. If the shotgun will never actually be used (literally, metaphorically, symbolically...) then it serves no purpose to the piece. I remove it. It's pointless. It may even cause distraction.

Same with video game design. If I specifically add a shower that players can interact with, and take time to build all the animations and such, then taking a shower should affect the gameplay moving forward in some way. It should help me drive the gameplay toward its eventual conclusion. Doesn't need to be a huge thing, it just needs to qualify its existence in the game.

For players that would argue: "It's simple immersion. I'd rather be able to use a shower or a toilet or a coffee machine if it's there. It's just cool." I would agree! And now let's take it one step further and spend the day or two it may take to actually incorporate a small buff or bit of world-building that actually affects the gameplay as well. Why would we not?

There's a shotgun on the mantlepiece. Let me use the shotgun, then. Not just hold the shotgun.

 

[Spockprime]

The conversation reminds me somewhat of the complaints about The Sims when it first came out, that were improved but not fixed in subsequent iterations of the game. Basic needs were an important core of the game, but were so frequent and took so long relative to the gameplay loop that it was more of a go to the bathroom simulator than a life simulator.

 

[SigilFey]

The conversation reminds me somewhat of the complaints about The Sims when it first came out, that were improved but not fixed in subsequent iterations of the game. Basic needs were an important core of the game, but were so frequent and took so long relative to the gameplay loop that it was more of a go to the bathroom simulator than a life simulator.

Yeah, balancing it is a chore. End result is you have two extremes of players that can always engage with any game (and every variance between them):
A.) Players that want to be busy constantly. Click-click-click-click-click! If I'm not hitting a button, the game is too slow. Give me something to do, or I'm bored! What's the point of a game if you're just waiting around for things?
B.)
C.)
...
X.)
Y.)
Z.) Players that want to move at their own pace and immerse. Stop interrupting me! I'm trying to concentrate on this, and the game is like a needy chihuahua with all the dings, and warnings, and pop-ups.

Hence, there are two solutions:
1.) Settings and options that allow for a more or less demanding experience.
2.) Buffs only. I don't lose anything if I don't engage with a particular mechanic.

^ First option is straightforward: I set the game to challenge me to keep up with it vs. just letting me move along at completely my own pace. Or anywhere in between. But it's my choice.

Second option is arguably simpler: I don't need any of those buffs, but they may come in handy. My choice. If I want to be busy constantly, I run around at a sprint and click on all the things to watch the numbers max. If I want to just challenge myself my way, I click on only the things I want to and move on when I'm ready.

 

[Tarille]

Not at all, in most cases. Yes, developing the actual system for tracking hunger, hygiene, exhaustion takes a little coding, but these are essentially layers on a baseline. That's...not even a full day of work. Add another few days of tweaking and testing just to make sure there's no glaring bugs. Tweaking these things takes seconds.

"It doesn't take resources... It just takes a day of writing code and several days tweaking said code. For ONE of those aforementioned dozens of systems!"

P.s. You forgot the part where you implement the things to deal with the tracked hunger, hygeine, exhaustion. You know, where you have to implement and create food sources and how to distribute them. Creating places to recover hygeine and exhaustion and also distributing them too (Which also involves some level of playtesting to determine ideal frequency of such things)

Yes, at its core, you can quickly and easily create a system where a bar labelled "Hunger" ticks down at a specific rate... But that's not the entire system.

Which is fine, but it defeats the core purpose of the gaming medium

The core purpose of the gaming medium is entertainment.

It's not bound by "Freedom" - In fact, due to limitations in technology, most of it is not even about freedom.

Meaning there's 2 distinct sides to gaming. There's the story telling aspect, whereby developers craft a story for players to experience. Then there's the sandbox aspect, whereby developers simply create a setting for players to do with what they want.

Most sandbox games are still under the umbrella of developer crafted story. With the notable actual sandbox platforms being things like Roblox and Table Top Simulator which really are just platforms for players to utilize for their own means.

Video games are based around having some form of player interaction. Though this doesn't necessarily provide freedom. Games like Visual Novels and Walking Simulators don't provide much (If any) freedom at all, you just press continue as needed. (Also, we can look back at classic games... Pong gave you the ability to move up or down and that was it. Space Invaders let you go left or right and shoot. Not a whole lot of freedom here)

And now let's take it one step further and spend the day or two it may take to actually incorporate a small buff or bit of world-building that actually affects the gameplay as well. Why would we not?

Why would we not?

Because not all gameplay affecting things are good.

It's the same thing with many things implemented into games due to "Realism" that end up simply being annoying and tedious.

Developers too often think to add things because they can, but forget about the key question of "What benefit does this provide to the gameplay?"

Which is ironic given that one of the most prominent things in the minds of developers is always "What is the best use of our time?" - Which is why things that affect the majority of players tend to get most of the focus. While niche things for a minority of individuals get passed over.

Of course, in terms of "Shotgun on the mantlepiece" (Or rather, Chekov's Gun) video games have a natural exception to the rule, due to the way that worldbuilding in an explorable space functions compared to other media where you are ONLY able to see directly what is shown to you.

This means you can have a bunch of stuff show up, just to give the illusion of a living world, even if it's not directly gameplay related (Or if it makes no logical sense... Like the oft found towns with 100+ citizens... With like 4 houses total because of video game world shrinkage).

Basically, if a video game world shows a house with a toilet in. It's perfectly fine for it to exist just as an acknowledgement that toilets are a thing and houses are designed towards normal expectations (And that the game is a suitable candidate for the Toilet% speedrun). It doesn't mean that players need to be able to utilize the toilet (Or urinate on command a la Postal) and it especially doesn't mean that it's necessary to make players have to use the toilet on a regular basis throughout their game experience due to "People in real life need to use toilets regularly!"

 

[SigilFey]

"It doesn't take resources... It just takes a day of writing code and several days tweaking said code. For ONE of those aforementioned dozens of systems!"

P.s. You forgot the part where you implement the things to deal with the tracked hunger, hygeine, exhaustion. You know, where you have to implement and create food sources and how to distribute them. Creating places to recover hygeine and exhaustion and also distributing them too (Which also involves some level of playtesting to determine ideal frequency of such things)

Yes, at its core, you can quickly and easily create a system where a bar labelled "Hunger" ticks down at a specific rate... But that's not the entire system.

I know people imagine things like this are wildly complex, but they're not. They're normally just a matter of hooking existing systems and adding a few lines of code to script in the effects. It does take modders a bit longer to do, since they often have to reverse engineer how the existing systems work, but for someone that already knows, it's extremely easy. Most often, any sort of hunger mechanic can just hijack effects that already exist in the game for things like poison, spells, tick damage, etc. and co-opt them into a constant script that runs in the background with all the other ones. I've written such scripts for Warcraft 2, Morrowind, Oblivion, Minecraft, and a few of the Unity projects I fiddled with over time. The only really time-consuming part of it was for Beth games, because every single individual food item needed to be individually updated to utilize the new system. Tedious.

As stated, it's possible to over-engineer things to ridiculous extremes, but that sort of code will be largely invisible and inefficient anyway. Worth considering for games like The Forest, SCUM, or ARK, where survival mechanics are the focus...pointless for games like Cyberpunk.

The core purpose of the gaming medium is entertainment.

Oof. "Purpose" was the wrong word. Primary "difference" is more what I meant. Only games allow you to customize the experience. Not allowing that, or limiting things that could be otherwise optional or configurable simply leads to automatic alienation of any player that disagrees.

Also, note, I'm not talking about every last little thing. I'm talking about well known points of contention established over the history of the industry: quick-time events, timed dialogue responses, mini-map/compass/in-world markers for objectives, mandatory tutorials or pop-up messages, hunger fatigue mechanics, one-hit kills, mandatory minigames (lock-picking/terminal hacking), unskippable cutscenes, automatic combat features, prompts and reminders for quests/level-ups/discoveries, giant health pools/spongey enemies, forced stealth, turret sequences, etc.

Why would we not?
...
Of course, in terms of "Shotgun on the mantlepiece" (Or rather, Chekov's Gun) video games have a natural exception to the rule, due to the way that worldbuilding in an explorable space functions compared to other media where you are ONLY able to see directly what is shown to you.

You're taking what I said extremely literally.

Simplification:

If I have a chair in the game, let me sit in it. And, that should perhaps speed up my stamina recovery, give me small boost to stamina if I sit for 10 seconds straight. That's sort of the purpose of chairs. They let you rest.

If I have a bowl of fruit on the table, let me eat a piece. And, that should decrease my hunger or give me a few points of health back. Whatever. That's the purpose of food -- it helps you energize and heal. (Maybe it's limited to 3 at a time. You're full. Can't abuse it.)

If I have a shower, replete with a complete animation cycle, give me a "clean" bonus of some sort. That's what showers do...they make you clean.

None of this needs to be game-altering levels of effect. It needs to be a small thing that recognizes the player interacted with it.

If it's there, and I use it, it serves a purpose, even if small.

Why would we not? What do we lose? How many players would wind up throwing a tantrum becuase taking a shower gave them a 5% bonus to their charisma stat?

Now...how many players would go..."Oh -- cool!" Everyone only wins.

 

[TavenJosephwice]

It doesn't give you that bonus one it only show you the sickness from the chip is slow again into you because sometimes you can vomit in the shower