They eat fish dung... which is so small that it's often blended into, if not often mistaken for, sand granules. Which would be strewn throughout the sands and cave walls - we may be seeing it all the time for all we know. Plus, I think there's animations of the Shuttlebug deploying those tripod-legs of it to adhere to cave walls - if they're not feeding when swimming about, they'd definitely be feeding then.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I thought this thread was about gameplay, and how the Shuttlebug is uninteresting at a glance (sorry @ShuttleBug). You'd need to scan one and read its PDA entry to find anything about the creature interesting as gameplaywise there's nothing. And I'm not sure a PDA entry would be enough to make me care about the Shuttlebug, unless its filtration of fish dung was visible. Sorry, but the Shuttlebug needs something visible to make it stand out, we can't be expected to scan it and read its PDA entry in order to become immersed.
In terms of gameplay mechanics, it's a cave-dweller life-form that's harmless - much like every single manta-ray creature in the game - and in terms of lore, it's there to feed on dung. Those are all in stark contrast to the Crashfish, which mechanically is just a threat to the player but lore-wise has no reason to explain why it's like that/what purposes that kind of evolutionary trait serves for it.
Other manta ray creatures in the game have appealing designs and will sometimes fight other fauna. They also make great sounds. They're interesting to watch because of all this, especially the Ghostrays surrounding the Ghost Tree.
But that Crashfish thing is actually quite interesting. I'd say that the Crashfish is like a bee in this regard; if a bee stings you, it dies. If a Crashfsh attacks you, it dies. But who knows? That's something for me to think about and overanalyse for the next week.
You claimed that if we don't see the Shuttlebug doing anything in game, than it has no point mechanically.. and yet, we don't see flies, minnows or anchovies do anything in real-life, yet they do in fact have a point mechanically.
I merely pointed out that the people who do have a problem with it have a problem with it mechanically, not within the lore... I don't agree with those people, because we don't need to understand their hidden purpose within any lore, be it official canon or our own imaginary purpose, but I do understand their point. I don't agree with it, because not every form of life has to do anything other than exist and swim around, but I do get what they're saying.
Let's use those chickens in the Witcher 3 for an example. These people would say "What's the point in them, they don't do anything mechanically" and I understand what they're saying. But I'd say they don't need to do anything other than be there to look at. We can infer their behaviour, their feeding, their reproduction etc. They add to the game without having any mechanics to control them other than the ability to move around a few feet and make a clucking noise. They help the world feel real. Just like Shuttlebugs.
And if the real world was a game, and we didn't see flies, minnows or anchovies do much of anything, it would be because they were programmed without the mechanics to do anything other than be there, and their hidden purpose would just be a PDA entry. Just like the Shuttlebug.
No; honestly, that's not it at all - it's it's bizarre physiology that has me objecting to your claims of it being a realistic component to any ecosystem. Under what circumstances would a creature develop so that literally it's only function is to explode when it's body impacts something? And again, no - if anything, it's because there isn't any such issues with the rest of the fauna that this is magnified, in an exploration-and-discovery game where the entire purpose of scanning a creature literally is to have their biology explained and learn how they fit into the ecosystem.
If orcs are in a game where one of the primary purposes of examining them was to learn about their biology, than of course not getting any sensible explanation would break immersion - just like an RPG without books and text-lore would break immersion, or an FPS without handguns. I most certainly would require knowing how zombies stave off rigor mortis if exploring, analyzing and and learning was one of the key purposes that game was described as having - you know, like it is in Subnautica?
Honestly speaking, how can you even ask whether or not it's required in a game where scanning the environment and using discovery as the basis of in-game motivation? Especially when games like Fallout do explain why there's edible items scattered across the world (dead past travelers, abandoned refuges, old stores, etc)? I'm sorry, but it honestly feels like it's more that you're not even aware of how different game genres demand different criteria be met, with the depths of each field changing depending on what their focus is on.
etc.
I can concur that you have a point here, mainly because you've presented your point of view well, and very differently than previously. If you consider scanning lifeforms to be a big part of the game for you, and the accuracy of the information gleaned from scanning is a big part of your enjoyment, then I can at least agree with you that there are huge gaps in that information and I can even see how it could take away from your enjoyment. Personally, I don't really care for scanning and reading about the creatures beyond a surface level, as they don't ever seem particularly interesting, and I've never personally found any reason or motivation to scan anything other than new modules. So that obviously comes down to a subjective opinion on what's important to the player.
P.S. If you're going to keep this up, can you please take it to PM? You argued with me at length the last time there was a Shuttlebug discussion page, too - I don't want another repeat of clogged up and derailing texts going back-and-fourth all day...
No, I didn't. You must be thinking of someone else because I only recently returned to the forum after about a year and a half away, and you joined the forums long after I stopped visiting. I also don't remember ever discussing the Shuttlebugs at any time.
I haven't actually played the game in a very long time, and to be honest, that might have a lot to do with explaining why your take on scanning differs so much to mine. When I last played, the PDA entries were terrible, and gave very little information on any flora or fauna. Scanning was nothing but a chore which gave you nothing in return (other than modules) and certainly wasn't a selling point of the game. I'm curious to play again when 1.0 arrives and see how it's changed, because all this kind of thing...
Furthermore, we do in fact know that the nests do not give off any minerals or gas - because when we scan them, we find no trace of such emissions. The only thing we find is a sulphur-like residue on the inner leaves, left behind by the Crashfish itself - which in and of itself generally isn't good at increasing fertility if it's in a combustable state like this stuff is. It's scans specifically state that the purpose of the sulfur is to make it combustable - none of which are "wonderful chemicals" since volatile combinations like that are more liable to be toxic due to the needed reactions for combustibility. It's even outright stated in the data-bank that the explosion's purpose is self-defensive, not microbial-diversification - these "bad boys" only "blow" to assure mutual destruction; it is not in any way done to benefit their environment, and claiming otherwise is not supported by the in-data or behaviors they show. Also, it's actually the Crashfish that feeds of of microbes and/or parasites to gain the needed sulphur for their chain-reactions. This is also a stated fact in the databank... so no, there is no "perhaps" of anything in regards to what they're doing; only a lack of explanation as to how a creature like this could have ever evolved.
... simply wasn't in the game when I last played. That's exactly why I argued strongly for use of the imagination rather than the game's official lore, because that lore simply didn't exist. And for that reason, I must concede your point from my position of ignorance, at least until I've seen the situation for myself. Perhaps you'll find me agreeing with you then, if the PDA entries are really well written and the devs have genuinely created an in-depth biological lore that gives me a motivation to scan creatures and learn about them, then I'll probably be disappointed with the Crashfish explanations too.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I thought this thread was about gameplay, and how the Shuttlebug is uninteresting at a glance (sorry @ShuttleBug).
And I'm saying that gameplay-wise, the Shuttlebug is doing precisely what it's supposed to be doing - swimming around grazing. Something that, again, every single one of the stingray-type fish is also equally-guilty of - and likewise, has a PDA entry that actually justifies why the player can't do anything with it (it's a dung-eater; the kind of bacteria it's body must have to digest dung wouldn't be healthy for human consumption, just like all the rays have toxic flesh).
Ergo, no; it really doesn't need any such visible aspect in order to stand out. It's a functional part of it's ecosystem - it's swimming and feeding like all the other fish out there.
Other manta ray creatures in the game have appealing designs and will sometimes fight other fauna. They also make great sounds. They're interesting to watch because of all this, especially the Ghostrays surrounding the Ghost Tree.
...
You do know that kinda just makes it feel like the Shuttlebug's only crime is it's color, right??
Okay - in all seriousness though, your argument there does literally boil down to that you won't give a pass to the Shuttlebug because it's not neon or see-through, but will for the stingrays. I mean, that's nowhere near close to being an issue of gameplay - that's an issue of favoring one useless thing over another just because one's got brighter colors. I mean, if you find the way it looks boring/is designed, that's one thing - to each his own - but for god's sake, don't try and pass it off as an issue of in-game functionality and utility if your sole reason for excusing other creatures just as non-functional or non-utilitarian to the player is simply what color they are as opposed to "visible interaction"!
But that Crashfish thing is actually quite interesting. I'd say that the Crashfish is like a bee in this regard; if a bee stings you, it dies. If a Crashfsh attacks you, it dies. But who knows? That's something for me to think about and overanalyse for the next week.
The Crashfish doesn't protect it's young; half the time it's self-destruct will destroy it's own nest and the eggs inside. The Crashfish doesn't help it's environment; if anything it causes more damage than I do. The Crashfish doesn't serve a role in pollination; it's body absorbs sulphur and the like. The Crashfish doesn't serve a role in the food chain; it's self-destruct and combustable insides make it impossible to feed on. The Crashfish doesn't fake it's injuries; it violently dies and chases the creature that attacked it down to do so. The Crashfish doesn't let it's young eat it; it's young grow up inside the crashfish-plant (which, again, it has no qualms about blowing up beside if it happens to be too close).
I'm sorry, but what exactly is bee-like about any of that? What about any of that makes it a creature that could realistically evolve to be the way it is, let alone survive that way? IMHO, that is anything but "something to think about and overanalyse for the next week" - it's almost impossible to logically justify it as something that would make sense to exist as anything else but a gameplay mechanic as opposed to a creature that could have actually evolved.
I merely pointed out that the people who do have a problem with it have a problem with it mechanically, not within the lore... I don't agree with those people, because we don't need to understand their hidden purpose within any lore, be it official canon or our own imaginary purpose, but I do understand their point. I don't agree with it, because not every form of life has to do anything other than exist and swim around, but I do get what they're saying.
And I in turn pointed out that this problem makes no sense, as mechanically it completely fulfills it's purpose as one of the native fauna; to swim and graze. This is no different than the stingrays in the game - we can freely observe it's gameplay purpose.
Let's use those chickens in the Witcher 3 for an example. These people would say "What's the point in them, they don't do anything mechanically" and I understand what they're saying. But I'd say they don't need to do anything other than be there to look at. We can infer their behaviour, their feeding, their reproduction etc. They add to the game without having any mechanics to control them other than the ability to move around a few feet and make a clucking noise. They help the world feel real. Just like Shuttlebugs.
Except last I checked, chickens weren't complained about in Witcher 3, or not to a noticable degree. That's because they're a widely-acknowledged staple of the human food-chain; one so heavily associated with being a food source that it would be actively strange not to see them, regardless of if they can be interacted with or not. The Shuttlebug does not have that advantage - it does not have ages of association with human culture needed for people to brush off their presence as natural like they can with chickens. It's not an actively-recognizable creature like the chicken is - it's just an alien creature, and so it feels like people think it needs to be more interesting to care. And I'm sorry if that sounds cynical,but it's hard not to be when someone said the similarly-useless Rabbit-Ray's advantage over the Shuttlebug boils down to "it's brightly colored".
Simply put, the chickens in Witcher 3 are not "just like Shuttlebugs", because people are too used to the real-world applications of the chicken in human culture to ever find their presence in a game unnatural even if they cannot actually be used as such. Because it's not a recognizable food brand, the Shuttlebug has no such leniency in how people treat it. Because of that, people overlook how the Shuttlebugs do have a purpose mechanically, because they're part of the world's ecosystem - they have an in-game purpose and reason to be there. Whether or not they help the world feel real is academic - any item with enough work put into it does that already from an in-game perspective.
And if the real world was a game, and we didn't see flies, minnows or anchovies do much of anything, it would be because they were programmed without the mechanics to do anything other than be there, and their hidden purpose would just be a PDA entry. Just like the Shuttlebug.
Again, all three of those are things that people know about and associate with bottom-feeding on a cultural level. We don't see them doing these things, but people seem to give them a pass over the Shuttlebug simply because they're more accustomed to the idea that "they're bottom-feeders" is common knowledge. For some reason, people seem to think the Shuttlebug needs to have an interesting in-game display of being a bottom-feeder when they wouldn't think twice about it if it was a fly, minnow or anchovy in front of them in the real world.
Also, arguing programming is kind of a misnomer in my opinion; their actions are so few and far between that there isn't much to program in - simple static patterns are all that's needed to display the full range of their purpose. Yet somehow, unlike the Shuttlebug, nobody seems to mind or think less of them for it - it's a nonsensical argument to compare the two when the Shuttlebug is honestly being lambasted on for acting no differently than any other bottom-feeder. Hell, if what @Jamezorg said is any indication, it gets flak compared to other useless in-game creatures simply because it's not brightly-colored like the Rabbit-Ray or the Jelly & Ghost-Ray.
I can concur that you have a point here, mainly because you've presented your point of view well, and very differently than previously. If you consider scanning lifeforms to be a big part of the game for you, and the accuracy of the information gleaned from scanning is a big part of your enjoyment, then I can at least agree with you that there are huge gaps in that information and I can even see how it could take away from your enjoyment. Personally, I don't really care for scanning and reading about the creatures beyond a surface level, as they don't ever seem particularly interesting, and I've never personally found any reason or motivation to scan anything other than new modules. So that obviously comes down to a subjective opinion on what's important to the player.
Subjectiveness aside though, you can't deny that exploration and discovery is a huge part of Subnautica's appeal - that you don't care about it is a matter of choice, yes, but the fact that all the flora and fauna in-game has databank entries to scan and unlock shows just how much of an aspect the scanning is in terms of world-building. It's a game where a huge part of the appeal is that you can research and learn about your environment - not that you must, mind you, but that you can if you choose to do so. So if there's something in there that rather pointedly breaks that immersion - if something that's been so fundamentally applied to every other thing, optional read or not, has an aspect where it's suddenly void - than it's still an issue even if it's not an aspect every player will go for.
No, I didn't. You must be thinking of someone else because I only recently returned to the forum after about a year and a half away, and you joined the forums long after I stopped visiting. I also don't remember ever discussing the Shuttlebugs at any time.
.... I don't know how I could be thinking of someone else.
This is you ( @EnglishInfidel ) and me ( @The08MetroidMan ) arguing about the Shuttlebug on a page about whether they were a useless life-form or not, isn't it? A page which derailed into an argument about egos and self. It was not even a full three months ago that this happened - how in all that is holy are you going to me that you have just got back from a year-and-a-half absence and never once discussed the Shuttlebug, when you can click on the post in this thread (made on May 14) and see it's made on your account? Are you telling me you were hacked or something, or did you forget that you argued text-walls back-and-forth with me for two whole days over a Shuttlebug debate?
... simply wasn't in the game when I last played. That's exactly why I argued strongly for use of the imagination rather than the game's official lore, because that lore simply didn't exist. And for that reason, I must concede your point from my position of ignorance, at least until I've seen the situation for myself. Perhaps you'll find me agreeing with you then, if the PDA entries are really well written and the devs have genuinely created an in-depth biological lore that gives me a motivation to scan creatures and learn about them, then I'll probably be disappointed with the Crashfish explanations too.
You don't really have to wait for the game, though; there's a wiki with copies of the current databank entries. It really depends on whether or not you want to wait, not that you have to.
Other manta ray creatures in the game have appealing designs and will sometimes fight other fauna. They also make great sounds. They're interesting to watch because of all this, especially the Ghostrays surrounding the Ghost Tree.
...
You do know that kinda just makes it feel like the Shuttlebug's only crime is it's color, right??
Pretty much, yea
If you're going to have a creature that doesn't affect gameplay, at least make it look cool is all I'm saying.
And I in turn pointed out that this problem makes no sense, as mechanically it completely fulfills it's purpose as one of the native fauna; to swim and graze. This is no different than the stingrays in the game - we can freely observe it's gameplay purpose.
Again, either you're being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant of what people exactly mean when they say "mechanically it has no purpose". I don't think you quite understand the context in which "mechanically" is being used here and I'm pretty much done playing Devil's advocate for those people just because I see you're missing the point of why people would be frustrated with this fauna in particular. If they want to defend themselves it's going to have to be them to do it because I can't really be bothered with this any longer. It's pretty clear to me why they complain about the Shuttlebug and not other creatures, even though the Shuttlebug is in fact more developed than some, and if it is "swimming and grazing" (I'm sceptical there's anything in game that they eat, there never used to be, and if there is, 99.9% of people aren't noticing it) doesn't mean a thing to most players because they aren't noticing.
I've stated a few times now that I agree with you, not them, regardless, because for me the Shuttlebug completely justifies it's existence simply by being there and swimming around, just like ambient creatures in most other games. Just like the chickens. Where we disagree is that you don't think the naysayers have a leg to stand on, whereas I can see where they're coming from.
Subjectiveness aside though, you can't deny that exploration and discovery is a huge part of Subnautica's appeal - that you don't care about it is a matter of choice, yes, but the fact that all the flora and fauna in-game has databank entries to scan and unlock shows just how much of an aspect the scanning is in terms of world-building. It's a game where a huge part of the appeal is that you can research and learn about your environment - not that you must, mind you, but that you can if you choose to do so. So if there's something in there that rather pointedly breaks that immersion - if something that's been so fundamentally applied to every other thing, optional read or not, has an aspect where it's suddenly void - than it's still an issue even if it's not an aspect every player will go for.
I already agreed with you on that, there's no need to ignore that and keep trying to persuade me.
.... I don't know how I could be thinking of someone else.
did you forget that you argued text-walls back-and-forth with me for two whole days over a Shuttlebug debate?
Yes I did. Don't for a moment underestimate how little this forum means to me. Sometimes I did visit and make a comment here or there, and there were even 2 separate weeks where I was able to hang around and have some proper discussions. I had absolutely no recollection of the discussion until seeing it again, and the memory probably wasn't triggered because that discussion wasn't even about the Shuttlebug per se, it was about self awareness with the Shuttlebug simply used as an example of a base creature. You can hardly call that an "Shuttlebug debate".
I don't consider the occasional comment here or there to be "actively engaged" with the forum... there's a world of difference between a tourist and a resident. Being engaged would be taking part in conversations like this one, and devoting a significant amount of time to conversing here. I wasn't living in a cave in the Yukon.
No offence meant here, but it seems you're a very literal person with little leeway for figures of speech or metaphor. It makes it tricky to debate things with you. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just pointing it out. Conversely I feel that I use turns of phrase far less prosaic, and I think it leads to us completely missing each other's points.
Regardless, as that other thread ended, so must this one. Peacefully agreeing to disagree.
You don't really have to wait for the game, though; there's a wiki with copies of the current databank entries. It really depends on whether or not you want to wait, not that you have to.
I'm not about to spoil the full experience by reading wikis.
If you're going to have a creature that doesn't affect gameplay, at least make it look cool is all I'm saying.
And all I'm saying is that you're basically admitting there isn't actually anything wrong with the Shuttlebug - it has nothing to do with it's usefulness or not; it's just discriminated against. I mean, even if people want to say that they find it's design or color boring, that'd be better than complaining about how it does nothing in-game when that's perfectly acceptable for all the rayfish.
If you're going to have a creature that doesn't affect gameplay, at least make it look cool is all I'm saying.
And all I'm saying is that you're basically admitting there isn't actually anything wrong with the Shuttlebug - it has nothing to do with it's usefulness or not; it's just discriminated against. I mean, even if people want to say that they find it's design or color boring, that'd be better than complaining about how it does nothing in-game when that's perfectly acceptable for all the rayfish.
Okay, you win if it'll stop this god damn useless argument.
Again, either you're being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant of what people exactly mean when they say "mechanically it has no purpose". I don't think you quite understand the context in which "mechanically" is being used here and I'm pretty much done playing Devil's advocate for those people just because I see you're missing the point of why people would be frustrated with this fauna in particular. If they want to defend themselves it's going to have to be them to do it because I can't really be bothered with this any longer. It's pretty clear to me why they complain about the Shuttlebug and not other creatures, even though the Shuttlebug is in fact more developed than some, and if it is "swimming and grazing" (I'm sceptical there's anything in game that they eat, there never used to be, and if there is, 99.9% of people aren't noticing it) doesn't mean a thing to most players because they aren't noticing.
No; if anything it's the complete opposite - it feels like you're the one ignoring that (A) it being a part of it's in-game ecosystem is it having a mechanical purpose in-game, and (B) that creatures just as incapable of being interacted with by the player (Rabbit-Ray, GhostRay, etc) are given a pass purely because they have bright colors. Rather than me misunderstanding the context, you're the one misunderstanding the premise itself - which is that people claim they dislike the Shuttlebug's lack of purpose, but in reality it's just because it's not "interesting to look at" rather than it actually doing anything wrong or failing in any aspect of it's in-game existence or placement.
Also, I point out that, barring the predators, none of the creatures in-game are ever shown eating anything - not the herbivore fish, not the scavengers. Again, the only reason people seem to care about the Shuttlebug is because it has duller colors than the equally-useless Rabbit-Ray.
I've stated a few times now that I agree with you, not them, regardless, because for me the Shuttlebug completely justifies it's existence simply by being there and swimming around, just like ambient creatures in most other games. Just like the chickens. Where we disagree is that you don't think the naysayers have a leg to stand on, whereas I can see where they're coming from.
The issue is that you often misunderstand the argument - because what I disagreed with you on was you thinking that it was only justified lore-wise; that you thought it had no mechanical purpose.
Yes I did. Don't for a moment underestimate how little this forum means to me. Sometimes I did visit and make a comment here or there, and there were even 2 separate weeks where I was able to hang around and have some proper discussions. I had absolutely no recollection of the discussion until seeing it again, and the memory probably wasn't triggered because that discussion wasn't even about the Shuttlebug per se, it was about self awareness with the Shuttlebug simply used as an example of a base creature. You can hardly call that an "Shuttlebug debate".
I don't consider the occasional comment here or there to be "actively engaged" with the forum... there's a world of difference between a tourist and a resident. Being engaged would be taking part in conversations like this one, and devoting a significant amount of time to conversing here. I wasn't living in a cave in the Yukon.
I never said you were living in a cave; I was just confused as to how a debate less than three months ago could be completely forgotten. Also, that's not true - the argument was indeed about the Shuttlebug being useless or not as a life-form; you and I were the ones who made it a debate about self-awareness, thereby derailing that thread. It was a Shuttlebug debate until you and I got involved
And it wasn't just an occasional comment; it was two days in which you traded almost a dozen texts of comparable size to this one with me. Whether or not you're "a tourist or a resident" is academic - you're still actively engaged regardless of if you do so often or not.
No offence meant here, but it seems you're a very literal person with little leeway for figures of speech or metaphor. It makes it tricky to debate things with you. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just pointing it out. Conversely I feel that I use turns of phrase far less prosaic, and I think it leads to us completely missing each other's points.
Regardless, as that other thread ended, so must this one. Peacefully agreeing to disagree.
It's not that I have little leeway for figures of speech or metaphor; it's that I disagree with how you used yours because, in my POV, their contexts are completely reversed from how you're seeing them. I actually do think I get and understand every one of your points - I simply don't agree with them all the same.
it feels like you're the one ignoring that (A) it being a part of it's in-game ecosystem is it having a mechanical purpose in-game,
No it isn't. It's not up for debate, this is simply you misunderstanding how the word "mechanics" is being used in this context. It's been explained to you numerous times but you fail to grasp it.
and (B) that creatures just as incapable of being interacted with by the player (Rabbit-Ray, GhostRay, etc) are given a pass purely because they have bright colors. Rather than me misunderstanding the context, you're the one misunderstanding the premise itself - which is that people claim they dislike the Shuttlebug's lack of purpose, but in reality it's just because it's not "interesting to look at" rather than it actually doing anything wrong or failing in any aspect of it's in-game existence or placement
Correct. Others are given a pass, and I can see why, whereas you apparently cannot. The beauty of the Rabbit-Ray goes a hell of a long way to endearing itself to players, and that's a natural occurrence, fair or not. Nobody has said the Shuttlebug isn't being singled out and treated unfairly here, you're quite right.
I point out that, barring the predators, none of the creatures in-game are ever shown eating anything - not the herbivore fish, not the scavengers. Again, the only reason people seem to care about the Shuttlebug is because it has duller colors than the equally-useless Rabbit-Ray.
I've never seen anyone criticise it's colours or appearance. In fact, the OP of this thread went as far as "Sure, on their own, they look semi interesting." I've said this many times now, but I happen to agree. Just being background makes them valued in my eyes.
The issue is that you often misunderstand the argument - because what I disagreed with you on was you thinking that it was only justified lore-wise; that you thought it had no mechanical purpose.
I don't misunderstand the argument at all. I've yet to see any evidence that mechanically, in the context I and others are talking about, it has any purpose what so ever. I've never seen it feed, and I'm sceptical about your claim that "They eat fish dung... which is so small that it's often blended into, if not often mistaken for, sand granules. Which would be strewn throughout the sands and cave walls - we may be seeing it all the time for all we know." And that's the closest to providing any evidence you've managed. Well do we know or not? Can you witness this behaviour or not?
Are the dung particles modelled in game? Does the Shuttlebug interact with them? If not, then mechanically it serves no purpose. And if the opposite is true then I'd have serious concerns regarding the developers wasting time on something so relatively trivial. This is what we mean by mechanics; Interactions, animations, an agency within the game world which is programmed to act a certain way... a mechanic of the game world.
It's not that I have little leeway for figures of speech or metaphor; it's that I disagree with how you used yours because, in my POV, their contexts are completely reversed from how you're seeing them. I actually do think I get and understand every one of your points - I simply don't agree with them all the same.
That's kind of stating the obvious. In your POV, of course you see the contexts reversed. That's why we're having this discussion and you've not yet realised what everyone else is getting at.
No it isn't. It's not up for debate, this is simply you misunderstanding how the word "mechanics" is being used in this context. It's been explained to you numerous times but you fail to grasp it.
Again, it feels the opposite - it feels more like you're not getting that "mechanics" aren't exclusive to player-intractable instances; they're anything in-game that functions toward a purpose, player-usable or otherwise. I'm not at all misunderstanding it - rather, the way you and I contextualize it is differently, and I disagree with your view of it.
Correct. Others are given a pass, and I can see why, whereas you apparently cannot. The beauty of the Rabbit-Ray goes a hell of a long way to endearing itself to players, and that's a natural occurrence, fair or not. Nobody has said the Shuttlebug isn't being singled out and treated unfairly here, you're quite right.
And yet in saying that, it causes the argument against the Shuttlebug to fall apart - because it's effectively saying that a "useless creature" just has to be colorful, as opposed to any of the myriad arguments about how it should or should not have a spicific player-interactive function or behavior. If people don't like how the Shuttlebug looks, just saying so would be better than trying to claim it's because of functionality. Not to mention that, personally speaking, I can't see "beauty" in the Rabbit-Ray - it's just brightly-colored.
I've never seen anyone criticise it's colours or appearance. In fact, the OP of this thread went as far as "Sure, on their own, they look semi interesting." I've said this many times now, but I happen to agree. Just being background makes them valued in my eyes.
You literally just said in your last paragraph that color was very much a reason the Shuttlebug wasn't given a pass like the Rabbit-Ray was. Something @Jamezorg seemed to agree with. Again, they're valuable mechanically as much as lore-wise because they're functioning parts of their environment - yet nobody seems to treat them as such when compared to the rayfish, just because they don't have stand-out colors.
I don't misunderstand the argument at all. I've yet to see any evidence that mechanically, in the context I and others are talking about, it has any purpose what so ever. I've never seen it feed, and I'm sceptical about your claim that "They eat fish dung... which is so small that it's often blended into, if not often mistaken for, sand granules. Which would be strewn throughout the sands and cave walls - we may be seeing it all the time for all we know." And that's the closest to providing any evidence you've managed. Well do we know or not? Can you witness this behaviour or not?
I disagree; you did very much misunderstand the argument, because you don't seem to realize I'm arguing that being a functioning piece of the environment (presence-wise and lore-wise) does make it mechanically-functional in the game world. My whole argument is that I believe the context you and others are talking about is incorrect - that it's misinterpreting what mechanical functionality in a game actually is; the fulfillment of an in-game role.
Also, need I remind you that, by your own admission, you've not read any of the in-game data-texts for Subnautica? Everything I said is evidence freely-accessible in the game - how was I supposed to know I was talking to someone who didn't look at either the in-game codex or the wiki, where the line "Mouth Parts: Small enough to be of no threat to even small organisms, this creature is clearly adapted to feed on the waste products of the ecosystem around i." is freely viewable, was not able to be viewed by you?
Also, again I say; arguing "can you witness this behavior or not" is academic since none of the smaller fish are ever witnessed eating anything at all. We can logically infer they're feeding as they swim, yet somehow the Shuttlebug out of all those other creatures requires further proof that the other creatures do not?
Are the dung particles modelled in game? Does the Shuttlebug interact with them? If not, then mechanically it serves no purpose. And if the opposite is true then I'd have serious concerns regarding the developers wasting time on something so relatively trivial. This is what we mean by mechanics; Interactions, animations, an agency within the game world which is programmed to act a certain way... a mechanic of the game world.
Do any of the other small fish - Peepers, Garryfish, Rabbit-Rays - interact with any such thing? Hell, do even large creatures like the Sea Treader and Reefback? None of them have any such interactions - none of them have any such model-bearing food... and yet we assume they're feeding off of things in the water too small to see with the naked eye. And yet, somehow, the Shuttlebug is automatically different... why? Because again; whether or not it's intractable with the player has no bearing on whether it work mechanically in the game - whether it works mechanically in the game is defined by if it serves a purpose in-game period, not whether it serves a player-spicific one. It's a functioning part of the world like the Rabbit-Ray is - yet it's lambasted as "useless" despite being no different in terms of function.
Also, I should point out that yes, the Shuttlebug does in fact have interactions with the environment - it occasionally latches itself onto the walls of caves, most likely to feed on the extremely small items that make up it's diet. There's even a unique in-game model for it's stance: https://cdn.mirror.wiki/http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/subnautica/images/0/07/Juper_2.jpg
That's kind of stating the obvious. In your POV, of course you see the contexts reversed. That's why we're having this discussion and you've not yet realised what everyone else is getting at.
Anyway, let's be done with this, please?
But the issue is that you think this view is a mistake - that you think it's because I'm misunderstanding you, rather than having a different view of it. It's not. It's that I don't agree with the conclusions you came to over it is all.
And yeah, I'd like for this to be done as well. Or failing that, move it to PM so that we can finally stop clogging the comments.
This is exactly what the forum is for, we're not clogging anything, we're using the space as intended.
Okay, I can't be bothered to continue quoting and deleting text, copy pasting etc. so I'm just going to say this; I really think you need to google what the definition of "game mechanics" is in popular nomenclature. You disagree with my definition and understand of the context... so I'm going to have to say you are just plain wrong then. Your definition of a "game mechanic" is one I've never heard before, and seems to be unique to you and you alone.
I quote you: "being a functioning piece of the environment (presence-wise and lore-wise) does make it mechanically-functional in the game world. My whole argument is that I believe the context you and others are talking about is incorrect - that it's misinterpreting what mechanical functionality in a game actually is; the fulfillment of an in-game role."
Well that is not the popular definition of a game mechanic. What you are describing is simply a game element. A game mechanic involves interaction and feedback.
Here are a couple of definitions a quick google got me:
"Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay." "game mechanics are rule based system/simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms" "these are individual actions (or systems of actions) within a game."
Interaction. Actions. Feedback. Providing gameplay.
Simply existing is not enough to constitute a game mechanic to most people, no matter how hard you disagree.
The Shuttlebug, with it's failure to create any interaction with the player or the environment, other than swimming, is not what 99% of people would call a game mechanic, but merely a game asset. You bring up the Sea Treader as an example of another creature which you consider to be similar to the Shuttlebug, but I'm afraid this doesn't work. You see the Sea Treader drops dung. That is a game mechanic, it interacts with the environment. There is a clear stage by stage process to it's action and a definite feedback loop.
That's not to say the Shuttlebug is the only one. We already mentioned the Rabbit-Ray, which also has no game mechanic (using the more common definition of the term) other than the ability to swim. However people don't pick on it because it looks nice. It's beauty validates it's existence in player's eyes, whereas the Shuttlebug isn't considered anything special.
It's okay that you disagree with me, but I'm just telling you that I really believe you're on your own.
This is exactly what the forum is for, we're not clogging anything, we're using the space as intended.
No, we're really not; this was a page about Shuttlebugs - and it's instead been derailed into an argument about what constitutes functional mechanics of something in a game and, before that, the evolutionary confusion of how the Crashfish came to be; we've discussed everything except the Shuttlebug itself. Hence why I ask again for you to take this to PM's if you're going to keep commenting - especially if you're not going to pull out when you say you are.
Okay, I can't be bothered to continue quoting and deleting text, copy pasting etc. so I'm just going to say this; I really think you need to google what the definition of "game mechanics" is in popular nomenclature. You disagree with my definition and understand of the context... so I'm going to have to say you are just plain wrong then. Your definition of a "game mechanic" is one I've never heard before, and seems to be unique to you and you alone.
No; again, I think the issue is ironically something you accused me of - which is that you're taking the context too literally. You think that for something to be mechanically functional in the game world, it must only refer to player mechanics - a line of thought that overlooks the fact that player-interaction mechanics (the player's actions and how they interact with the world) and world mechanics (the independent functions of the world beyond what the player interacts with) are both "game mechanics." The issue is that, in your mind, "game mechanics" only applies to the functions of the player character and what they can interact with - you're overlooking that world mechanics, AKA the mechanics of the rest of the world beyond the player character, are just as much "game mechanics", because they're what create a living world for the player to explore.
Well that is not the popular definition of a game mechanic. What you are describing is simply a game element. A game mechanic involves interaction and feedback.
Here are a couple of definitions a quick google got me:
"Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay." "game mechanics are rule based system/simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms" "these are individual actions (or systems of actions) within a game."
And therein lies the issue; you're overlooking the fact that "interaction and feedback" are not things exclusive to the player-character. Game elements in and of themselves are game mechanics - player mechanics (the functionality of the player-character) and world mechanics (the functionality of the things in the world) are both "game mechanics". Hell, your own quotes apply to it as well.
- If "Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay", than it honestly would apply to more than actual interaction - it would apply to observation or how in-game constructs behave or interact with their environment as well.
- If "game mechanics are rule based system/simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms", than that would include the system/simulations of things not directly manipulatable to the player - passive fauna, in other words. Honestly speaking, the only thing the Shuttlebug would need to fulfill that criteria is to have any kind of interaction period - which it and everything else in-game already has in the form of scanning (a player-based interaction where you use an item to interact with it to receive lore information).
- Saying "these are individual actions (or systems of actions) within a game" still does not specify the player's actions alone are the sole defining aspect.
What you're describing is closer to gameplay mechanics, not "game mechanics" - game mechanics describe any set of mechanics in-game that apply to the functionality of the world, player-centric or world-independent alike, whereas gameplay is how the controls and interaction alone actually work.
Interaction. Actions. Feedback. Providing gameplay.
Simply existing is not enough to constitute a game mechanic to most people, no matter how hard you disagree.
Again, not true - because it's not "simply existing"; it's functioning as a piece of the environment. It swims about, it feeds, it can be scanned, it can be killed. It's a creature in the environment - mechanically, it functions as a piece of the wider world; it does not have to be intractable with the player to do that.
The big issue is that you're describing is closer to gameplay mechanics, not "game mechanics" - game mechanics describe any set of mechanics and coded behaviors in-game that apply to the functionality of the world, player-centric or world-independent alike, whereas gameplay is how the controls and interaction alone actually work.
The Shuttlebug, with it's failure to create any interaction with the player or the environment, other than swimming, is not what 99% of people would call a game mechanic, but merely a game asset. You bring up the Sea Treader as an example of another creature which you consider to be similar to the Shuttlebug, but I'm afraid this doesn't work. You see the Sea Treader drops dung. That is a game mechanic, it interacts with the environment. There is a clear stage by stage process to it's action and a definite feedback loop.
Except that, aside from the definitions of "game mechanic" and "gameplay mechanic" bleeding together here, this isn't true according to your own criteria - Shuttlebugs interact with their environment ("docking" to tunnel walls); Shuttlebugs have actions ("docking" to walls); Shuttlebugs take feedback (they bleed, swim off or die when attacked); Shuttlebugs provide gameplay (via observation, being scanned for study and being a functioning part of their environment).
Also, you completely missed my point - which is that the Sea Treader is never seen eating anything. Which goes against your claim that the Shuttlebug not visibly feeding on something made it mechanically useless - I wasn't talking about what it produced; I was pointing out that it didn't take from the environment anymore than the Shuttlebug did - it does not in fact interact with the environment because, by your own criteria, interaction involves manipulating an item already in it, which the Sea Treader does not. It is not a feedback loop, because there is no cycle - it poops and nothing else; it doesn't visibly interact with the environment to do that.
Also, for the record, I looked it up and learned that - based on the Trello & Wiki pages - the Shuttlebug has eggs that can be hatched so that they may be farmed for the Bio-Reactor. So even by your own standards, it does in fact have a resource it can provide.... which I just realized makes a lot of this back-and-fourth utterly moot.
That's not to say the Shuttlebug is the only one. We already mentioned the Rabbit-Ray, which also has no game mechanic (using the more common definition of the term) other than the ability to swim. However people don't pick on it because it looks nice. It's beauty validates it's existence in player's eyes, whereas the Shuttlebug isn't considered anything special.
It's okay that you disagree with me, but I'm just telling you that I really believe you're on your own.
But that's still basically admitting it's not actually an issue of functionality or mechanics - it's just visual appeal instead of it "being mechanically useless" or the like.
And likewise, I again ask that if we're going to keep disagreeing, can we please do it in PM instead of continuing to clog this thread with, as has been so aptly put before, "this useless god damn argument"?
Maybe the name should be considered as part of its function in game. It takes fish dung and moves it from the game to the game forums... (sorry, had to make a joke as this was getting really....deep. /grin)
Seriously though, I do agree that their AI might be a bit flawed but they don't need to actually "do" anything in the game. At least anything observable. Didn't they attack the player at some point? I seem to remember being on the Aurora a long time ago and having to bring the repulser rife with me to send them into the water. Maybe that wasn't shuttlebugs...
It has been a while since I played and while I did just start again, I cannot get very far. I play with the Oculus Rift and we (VR users) are currently suffering from being unable to enter or exit our base, the Seamoth, PRAWN, or the Cyclops (PRAWN and Cyclops are speculated, as anything that has an animation attached to it, like entering or exiting, is broken).
Maybe I'm just not remembering things right, which would be awesome since taking a break was designed to let the game evolve and let it be new to me again, right before the 1.0 release.
Comments
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I thought this thread was about gameplay, and how the Shuttlebug is uninteresting at a glance (sorry @ShuttleBug). You'd need to scan one and read its PDA entry to find anything about the creature interesting as gameplaywise there's nothing. And I'm not sure a PDA entry would be enough to make me care about the Shuttlebug, unless its filtration of fish dung was visible. Sorry, but the Shuttlebug needs something visible to make it stand out, we can't be expected to scan it and read its PDA entry in order to become immersed.
Other manta ray creatures in the game have appealing designs and will sometimes fight other fauna. They also make great sounds. They're interesting to watch because of all this, especially the Ghostrays surrounding the Ghost Tree.
But that Crashfish thing is actually quite interesting. I'd say that the Crashfish is like a bee in this regard; if a bee stings you, it dies. If a Crashfsh attacks you, it dies. But who knows? That's something for me to think about and overanalyse for the next week.
I merely pointed out that the people who do have a problem with it have a problem with it mechanically, not within the lore... I don't agree with those people, because we don't need to understand their hidden purpose within any lore, be it official canon or our own imaginary purpose, but I do understand their point. I don't agree with it, because not every form of life has to do anything other than exist and swim around, but I do get what they're saying.
Let's use those chickens in the Witcher 3 for an example. These people would say "What's the point in them, they don't do anything mechanically" and I understand what they're saying. But I'd say they don't need to do anything other than be there to look at. We can infer their behaviour, their feeding, their reproduction etc. They add to the game without having any mechanics to control them other than the ability to move around a few feet and make a clucking noise. They help the world feel real. Just like Shuttlebugs.
And if the real world was a game, and we didn't see flies, minnows or anchovies do much of anything, it would be because they were programmed without the mechanics to do anything other than be there, and their hidden purpose would just be a PDA entry. Just like the Shuttlebug.
I can concur that you have a point here, mainly because you've presented your point of view well, and very differently than previously. If you consider scanning lifeforms to be a big part of the game for you, and the accuracy of the information gleaned from scanning is a big part of your enjoyment, then I can at least agree with you that there are huge gaps in that information and I can even see how it could take away from your enjoyment. Personally, I don't really care for scanning and reading about the creatures beyond a surface level, as they don't ever seem particularly interesting, and I've never personally found any reason or motivation to scan anything other than new modules. So that obviously comes down to a subjective opinion on what's important to the player.
No, I didn't. You must be thinking of someone else because I only recently returned to the forum after about a year and a half away, and you joined the forums long after I stopped visiting. I also don't remember ever discussing the Shuttlebugs at any time.
I haven't actually played the game in a very long time, and to be honest, that might have a lot to do with explaining why your take on scanning differs so much to mine. When I last played, the PDA entries were terrible, and gave very little information on any flora or fauna. Scanning was nothing but a chore which gave you nothing in return (other than modules) and certainly wasn't a selling point of the game. I'm curious to play again when 1.0 arrives and see how it's changed, because all this kind of thing...
... simply wasn't in the game when I last played. That's exactly why I argued strongly for use of the imagination rather than the game's official lore, because that lore simply didn't exist. And for that reason, I must concede your point from my position of ignorance, at least until I've seen the situation for myself. Perhaps you'll find me agreeing with you then, if the PDA entries are really well written and the devs have genuinely created an in-depth biological lore that gives me a motivation to scan creatures and learn about them, then I'll probably be disappointed with the Crashfish explanations too.
And I'm saying that gameplay-wise, the Shuttlebug is doing precisely what it's supposed to be doing - swimming around grazing. Something that, again, every single one of the stingray-type fish is also equally-guilty of - and likewise, has a PDA entry that actually justifies why the player can't do anything with it (it's a dung-eater; the kind of bacteria it's body must have to digest dung wouldn't be healthy for human consumption, just like all the rays have toxic flesh).
Ergo, no; it really doesn't need any such visible aspect in order to stand out. It's a functional part of it's ecosystem - it's swimming and feeding like all the other fish out there.
...
You do know that kinda just makes it feel like the Shuttlebug's only crime is it's color, right??
Okay - in all seriousness though, your argument there does literally boil down to that you won't give a pass to the Shuttlebug because it's not neon or see-through, but will for the stingrays. I mean, that's nowhere near close to being an issue of gameplay - that's an issue of favoring one useless thing over another just because one's got brighter colors. I mean, if you find the way it looks boring/is designed, that's one thing - to each his own - but for god's sake, don't try and pass it off as an issue of in-game functionality and utility if your sole reason for excusing other creatures just as non-functional or non-utilitarian to the player is simply what color they are as opposed to "visible interaction"!
I will repeat what I told @EnglishInfidel:
The Crashfish doesn't protect it's young; half the time it's self-destruct will destroy it's own nest and the eggs inside. The Crashfish doesn't help it's environment; if anything it causes more damage than I do. The Crashfish doesn't serve a role in pollination; it's body absorbs sulphur and the like. The Crashfish doesn't serve a role in the food chain; it's self-destruct and combustable insides make it impossible to feed on. The Crashfish doesn't fake it's injuries; it violently dies and chases the creature that attacked it down to do so. The Crashfish doesn't let it's young eat it; it's young grow up inside the crashfish-plant (which, again, it has no qualms about blowing up beside if it happens to be too close).
I'm sorry, but what exactly is bee-like about any of that? What about any of that makes it a creature that could realistically evolve to be the way it is, let alone survive that way? IMHO, that is anything but "something to think about and overanalyse for the next week" - it's almost impossible to logically justify it as something that would make sense to exist as anything else but a gameplay mechanic as opposed to a creature that could have actually evolved.
And I in turn pointed out that this problem makes no sense, as mechanically it completely fulfills it's purpose as one of the native fauna; to swim and graze. This is no different than the stingrays in the game - we can freely observe it's gameplay purpose.
Except last I checked, chickens weren't complained about in Witcher 3, or not to a noticable degree. That's because they're a widely-acknowledged staple of the human food-chain; one so heavily associated with being a food source that it would be actively strange not to see them, regardless of if they can be interacted with or not. The Shuttlebug does not have that advantage - it does not have ages of association with human culture needed for people to brush off their presence as natural like they can with chickens. It's not an actively-recognizable creature like the chicken is - it's just an alien creature, and so it feels like people think it needs to be more interesting to care. And I'm sorry if that sounds cynical,but it's hard not to be when someone said the similarly-useless Rabbit-Ray's advantage over the Shuttlebug boils down to "it's brightly colored".
Simply put, the chickens in Witcher 3 are not "just like Shuttlebugs", because people are too used to the real-world applications of the chicken in human culture to ever find their presence in a game unnatural even if they cannot actually be used as such. Because it's not a recognizable food brand, the Shuttlebug has no such leniency in how people treat it. Because of that, people overlook how the Shuttlebugs do have a purpose mechanically, because they're part of the world's ecosystem - they have an in-game purpose and reason to be there. Whether or not they help the world feel real is academic - any item with enough work put into it does that already from an in-game perspective.
Again, all three of those are things that people know about and associate with bottom-feeding on a cultural level. We don't see them doing these things, but people seem to give them a pass over the Shuttlebug simply because they're more accustomed to the idea that "they're bottom-feeders" is common knowledge. For some reason, people seem to think the Shuttlebug needs to have an interesting in-game display of being a bottom-feeder when they wouldn't think twice about it if it was a fly, minnow or anchovy in front of them in the real world.
Also, arguing programming is kind of a misnomer in my opinion; their actions are so few and far between that there isn't much to program in - simple static patterns are all that's needed to display the full range of their purpose. Yet somehow, unlike the Shuttlebug, nobody seems to mind or think less of them for it - it's a nonsensical argument to compare the two when the Shuttlebug is honestly being lambasted on for acting no differently than any other bottom-feeder. Hell, if what @Jamezorg said is any indication, it gets flak compared to other useless in-game creatures simply because it's not brightly-colored like the Rabbit-Ray or the Jelly & Ghost-Ray.
Subjectiveness aside though, you can't deny that exploration and discovery is a huge part of Subnautica's appeal - that you don't care about it is a matter of choice, yes, but the fact that all the flora and fauna in-game has databank entries to scan and unlock shows just how much of an aspect the scanning is in terms of world-building. It's a game where a huge part of the appeal is that you can research and learn about your environment - not that you must, mind you, but that you can if you choose to do so. So if there's something in there that rather pointedly breaks that immersion - if something that's been so fundamentally applied to every other thing, optional read or not, has an aspect where it's suddenly void - than it's still an issue even if it's not an aspect every player will go for.
.... I don't know how I could be thinking of someone else.
https://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/151851/most-useless-life-form-on-the-planet/p2
This is you ( @EnglishInfidel ) and me ( @The08MetroidMan ) arguing about the Shuttlebug on a page about whether they were a useless life-form or not, isn't it? A page which derailed into an argument about egos and self. It was not even a full three months ago that this happened - how in all that is holy are you going to me that you have just got back from a year-and-a-half absence and never once discussed the Shuttlebug, when you can click on the post in this thread (made on May 14) and see it's made on your account? Are you telling me you were hacked or something, or did you forget that you argued text-walls back-and-forth with me for two whole days over a Shuttlebug debate?
You don't really have to wait for the game, though; there's a wiki with copies of the current databank entries. It really depends on whether or not you want to wait, not that you have to.
Pretty much, yea
If you're going to have a creature that doesn't affect gameplay, at least make it look cool is all I'm saying.
Again, either you're being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant of what people exactly mean when they say "mechanically it has no purpose". I don't think you quite understand the context in which "mechanically" is being used here and I'm pretty much done playing Devil's advocate for those people just because I see you're missing the point of why people would be frustrated with this fauna in particular. If they want to defend themselves it's going to have to be them to do it because I can't really be bothered with this any longer. It's pretty clear to me why they complain about the Shuttlebug and not other creatures, even though the Shuttlebug is in fact more developed than some, and if it is "swimming and grazing" (I'm sceptical there's anything in game that they eat, there never used to be, and if there is, 99.9% of people aren't noticing it) doesn't mean a thing to most players because they aren't noticing.
I've stated a few times now that I agree with you, not them, regardless, because for me the Shuttlebug completely justifies it's existence simply by being there and swimming around, just like ambient creatures in most other games. Just like the chickens. Where we disagree is that you don't think the naysayers have a leg to stand on, whereas I can see where they're coming from.
I already agreed with you on that, there's no need to ignore that and keep trying to persuade me.
Yes I did. Don't for a moment underestimate how little this forum means to me. Sometimes I did visit and make a comment here or there, and there were even 2 separate weeks where I was able to hang around and have some proper discussions. I had absolutely no recollection of the discussion until seeing it again, and the memory probably wasn't triggered because that discussion wasn't even about the Shuttlebug per se, it was about self awareness with the Shuttlebug simply used as an example of a base creature. You can hardly call that an "Shuttlebug debate".
I don't consider the occasional comment here or there to be "actively engaged" with the forum... there's a world of difference between a tourist and a resident. Being engaged would be taking part in conversations like this one, and devoting a significant amount of time to conversing here. I wasn't living in a cave in the Yukon.
No offence meant here, but it seems you're a very literal person with little leeway for figures of speech or metaphor. It makes it tricky to debate things with you. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just pointing it out. Conversely I feel that I use turns of phrase far less prosaic, and I think it leads to us completely missing each other's points.
Regardless, as that other thread ended, so must this one. Peacefully agreeing to disagree.
I'm not about to spoil the full experience by reading wikis.
And all I'm saying is that you're basically admitting there isn't actually anything wrong with the Shuttlebug - it has nothing to do with it's usefulness or not; it's just discriminated against. I mean, even if people want to say that they find it's design or color boring, that'd be better than complaining about how it does nothing in-game when that's perfectly acceptable for all the rayfish.
Okay, you win if it'll stop this god damn useless argument.
No; if anything it's the complete opposite - it feels like you're the one ignoring that (A) it being a part of it's in-game ecosystem is it having a mechanical purpose in-game, and (B) that creatures just as incapable of being interacted with by the player (Rabbit-Ray, GhostRay, etc) are given a pass purely because they have bright colors. Rather than me misunderstanding the context, you're the one misunderstanding the premise itself - which is that people claim they dislike the Shuttlebug's lack of purpose, but in reality it's just because it's not "interesting to look at" rather than it actually doing anything wrong or failing in any aspect of it's in-game existence or placement.
Also, I point out that, barring the predators, none of the creatures in-game are ever shown eating anything - not the herbivore fish, not the scavengers. Again, the only reason people seem to care about the Shuttlebug is because it has duller colors than the equally-useless Rabbit-Ray.
The issue is that you often misunderstand the argument - because what I disagreed with you on was you thinking that it was only justified lore-wise; that you thought it had no mechanical purpose.
I wasn't ignoring it, though; I just was saying that it's still an integral part of the game even if it's something not everyone cares about.
I never said you were living in a cave; I was just confused as to how a debate less than three months ago could be completely forgotten. Also, that's not true - the argument was indeed about the Shuttlebug being useless or not as a life-form; you and I were the ones who made it a debate about self-awareness, thereby derailing that thread. It was a Shuttlebug debate until you and I got involved
And it wasn't just an occasional comment; it was two days in which you traded almost a dozen texts of comparable size to this one with me. Whether or not you're "a tourist or a resident" is academic - you're still actively engaged regardless of if you do so often or not.
It's not that I have little leeway for figures of speech or metaphor; it's that I disagree with how you used yours because, in my POV, their contexts are completely reversed from how you're seeing them. I actually do think I get and understand every one of your points - I simply don't agree with them all the same.
Correct. Others are given a pass, and I can see why, whereas you apparently cannot. The beauty of the Rabbit-Ray goes a hell of a long way to endearing itself to players, and that's a natural occurrence, fair or not. Nobody has said the Shuttlebug isn't being singled out and treated unfairly here, you're quite right.
I've never seen anyone criticise it's colours or appearance. In fact, the OP of this thread went as far as "Sure, on their own, they look semi interesting." I've said this many times now, but I happen to agree. Just being background makes them valued in my eyes.
I don't misunderstand the argument at all. I've yet to see any evidence that mechanically, in the context I and others are talking about, it has any purpose what so ever. I've never seen it feed, and I'm sceptical about your claim that "They eat fish dung... which is so small that it's often blended into, if not often mistaken for, sand granules. Which would be strewn throughout the sands and cave walls - we may be seeing it all the time for all we know." And that's the closest to providing any evidence you've managed. Well do we know or not? Can you witness this behaviour or not?
Are the dung particles modelled in game? Does the Shuttlebug interact with them? If not, then mechanically it serves no purpose. And if the opposite is true then I'd have serious concerns regarding the developers wasting time on something so relatively trivial. This is what we mean by mechanics; Interactions, animations, an agency within the game world which is programmed to act a certain way... a mechanic of the game world.
That's kind of stating the obvious. In your POV, of course you see the contexts reversed. That's why we're having this discussion and you've not yet realised what everyone else is getting at.
Anyway, let's be done with this, please?
Again, it feels the opposite - it feels more like you're not getting that "mechanics" aren't exclusive to player-intractable instances; they're anything in-game that functions toward a purpose, player-usable or otherwise. I'm not at all misunderstanding it - rather, the way you and I contextualize it is differently, and I disagree with your view of it.
And yet in saying that, it causes the argument against the Shuttlebug to fall apart - because it's effectively saying that a "useless creature" just has to be colorful, as opposed to any of the myriad arguments about how it should or should not have a spicific player-interactive function or behavior. If people don't like how the Shuttlebug looks, just saying so would be better than trying to claim it's because of functionality. Not to mention that, personally speaking, I can't see "beauty" in the Rabbit-Ray - it's just brightly-colored.
You literally just said in your last paragraph that color was very much a reason the Shuttlebug wasn't given a pass like the Rabbit-Ray was. Something @Jamezorg seemed to agree with. Again, they're valuable mechanically as much as lore-wise because they're functioning parts of their environment - yet nobody seems to treat them as such when compared to the rayfish, just because they don't have stand-out colors.
I disagree; you did very much misunderstand the argument, because you don't seem to realize I'm arguing that being a functioning piece of the environment (presence-wise and lore-wise) does make it mechanically-functional in the game world. My whole argument is that I believe the context you and others are talking about is incorrect - that it's misinterpreting what mechanical functionality in a game actually is; the fulfillment of an in-game role.
Also, need I remind you that, by your own admission, you've not read any of the in-game data-texts for Subnautica? Everything I said is evidence freely-accessible in the game - how was I supposed to know I was talking to someone who didn't look at either the in-game codex or the wiki, where the line "Mouth Parts: Small enough to be of no threat to even small organisms, this creature is clearly adapted to feed on the waste products of the ecosystem around i." is freely viewable, was not able to be viewed by you?
Also, again I say; arguing "can you witness this behavior or not" is academic since none of the smaller fish are ever witnessed eating anything at all. We can logically infer they're feeding as they swim, yet somehow the Shuttlebug out of all those other creatures requires further proof that the other creatures do not?
Do any of the other small fish - Peepers, Garryfish, Rabbit-Rays - interact with any such thing? Hell, do even large creatures like the Sea Treader and Reefback? None of them have any such interactions - none of them have any such model-bearing food... and yet we assume they're feeding off of things in the water too small to see with the naked eye. And yet, somehow, the Shuttlebug is automatically different... why? Because again; whether or not it's intractable with the player has no bearing on whether it work mechanically in the game - whether it works mechanically in the game is defined by if it serves a purpose in-game period, not whether it serves a player-spicific one. It's a functioning part of the world like the Rabbit-Ray is - yet it's lambasted as "useless" despite being no different in terms of function.
Also, I should point out that yes, the Shuttlebug does in fact have interactions with the environment - it occasionally latches itself onto the walls of caves, most likely to feed on the extremely small items that make up it's diet. There's even a unique in-game model for it's stance:
https://cdn.mirror.wiki/http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/subnautica/images/0/07/Juper_2.jpg
But the issue is that you think this view is a mistake - that you think it's because I'm misunderstanding you, rather than having a different view of it. It's not. It's that I don't agree with the conclusions you came to over it is all.
And yeah, I'd like for this to be done as well. Or failing that, move it to PM so that we can finally stop clogging the comments.
Okay, I can't be bothered to continue quoting and deleting text, copy pasting etc. so I'm just going to say this; I really think you need to google what the definition of "game mechanics" is in popular nomenclature. You disagree with my definition and understand of the context... so I'm going to have to say you are just plain wrong then. Your definition of a "game mechanic" is one I've never heard before, and seems to be unique to you and you alone.
I quote you: "being a functioning piece of the environment (presence-wise and lore-wise) does make it mechanically-functional in the game world. My whole argument is that I believe the context you and others are talking about is incorrect - that it's misinterpreting what mechanical functionality in a game actually is; the fulfillment of an in-game role."
Well that is not the popular definition of a game mechanic. What you are describing is simply a game element. A game mechanic involves interaction and feedback.
Here are a couple of definitions a quick google got me:
"Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay."
"game mechanics are rule based system/simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms"
"these are individual actions (or systems of actions) within a game."
Interaction. Actions. Feedback. Providing gameplay.
Simply existing is not enough to constitute a game mechanic to most people, no matter how hard you disagree.
The Shuttlebug, with it's failure to create any interaction with the player or the environment, other than swimming, is not what 99% of people would call a game mechanic, but merely a game asset. You bring up the Sea Treader as an example of another creature which you consider to be similar to the Shuttlebug, but I'm afraid this doesn't work. You see the Sea Treader drops dung. That is a game mechanic, it interacts with the environment. There is a clear stage by stage process to it's action and a definite feedback loop.
That's not to say the Shuttlebug is the only one. We already mentioned the Rabbit-Ray, which also has no game mechanic (using the more common definition of the term) other than the ability to swim. However people don't pick on it because it looks nice. It's beauty validates it's existence in player's eyes, whereas the Shuttlebug isn't considered anything special.
It's okay that you disagree with me, but I'm just telling you that I really believe you're on your own.
No, we're really not; this was a page about Shuttlebugs - and it's instead been derailed into an argument about what constitutes functional mechanics of something in a game and, before that, the evolutionary confusion of how the Crashfish came to be; we've discussed everything except the Shuttlebug itself. Hence why I ask again for you to take this to PM's if you're going to keep commenting - especially if you're not going to pull out when you say you are.
No; again, I think the issue is ironically something you accused me of - which is that you're taking the context too literally. You think that for something to be mechanically functional in the game world, it must only refer to player mechanics - a line of thought that overlooks the fact that player-interaction mechanics (the player's actions and how they interact with the world) and world mechanics (the independent functions of the world beyond what the player interacts with) are both "game mechanics." The issue is that, in your mind, "game mechanics" only applies to the functions of the player character and what they can interact with - you're overlooking that world mechanics, AKA the mechanics of the rest of the world beyond the player character, are just as much "game mechanics", because they're what create a living world for the player to explore.
And therein lies the issue; you're overlooking the fact that "interaction and feedback" are not things exclusive to the player-character. Game elements in and of themselves are game mechanics - player mechanics (the functionality of the player-character) and world mechanics (the functionality of the things in the world) are both "game mechanics". Hell, your own quotes apply to it as well.
- If "Game mechanics are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay", than it honestly would apply to more than actual interaction - it would apply to observation or how in-game constructs behave or interact with their environment as well.
- If "game mechanics are rule based system/simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms", than that would include the system/simulations of things not directly manipulatable to the player - passive fauna, in other words. Honestly speaking, the only thing the Shuttlebug would need to fulfill that criteria is to have any kind of interaction period - which it and everything else in-game already has in the form of scanning (a player-based interaction where you use an item to interact with it to receive lore information).
- Saying "these are individual actions (or systems of actions) within a game" still does not specify the player's actions alone are the sole defining aspect.
What you're describing is closer to gameplay mechanics, not "game mechanics" - game mechanics describe any set of mechanics in-game that apply to the functionality of the world, player-centric or world-independent alike, whereas gameplay is how the controls and interaction alone actually work.
Again, not true - because it's not "simply existing"; it's functioning as a piece of the environment. It swims about, it feeds, it can be scanned, it can be killed. It's a creature in the environment - mechanically, it functions as a piece of the wider world; it does not have to be intractable with the player to do that.
The big issue is that you're describing is closer to gameplay mechanics, not "game mechanics" - game mechanics describe any set of mechanics and coded behaviors in-game that apply to the functionality of the world, player-centric or world-independent alike, whereas gameplay is how the controls and interaction alone actually work.
Except that, aside from the definitions of "game mechanic" and "gameplay mechanic" bleeding together here, this isn't true according to your own criteria - Shuttlebugs interact with their environment ("docking" to tunnel walls); Shuttlebugs have actions ("docking" to walls); Shuttlebugs take feedback (they bleed, swim off or die when attacked); Shuttlebugs provide gameplay (via observation, being scanned for study and being a functioning part of their environment).
Also, you completely missed my point - which is that the Sea Treader is never seen eating anything. Which goes against your claim that the Shuttlebug not visibly feeding on something made it mechanically useless - I wasn't talking about what it produced; I was pointing out that it didn't take from the environment anymore than the Shuttlebug did - it does not in fact interact with the environment because, by your own criteria, interaction involves manipulating an item already in it, which the Sea Treader does not. It is not a feedback loop, because there is no cycle - it poops and nothing else; it doesn't visibly interact with the environment to do that.
Also, for the record, I looked it up and learned that - based on the Trello & Wiki pages - the Shuttlebug has eggs that can be hatched so that they may be farmed for the Bio-Reactor. So even by your own standards, it does in fact have a resource it can provide.... which I just realized makes a lot of this back-and-fourth utterly moot.
But that's still basically admitting it's not actually an issue of functionality or mechanics - it's just visual appeal instead of it "being mechanically useless" or the like.
And likewise, I again ask that if we're going to keep disagreeing, can we please do it in PM instead of continuing to clog this thread with, as has been so aptly put before, "this useless god damn argument"?
Seriously though, I do agree that their AI might be a bit flawed but they don't need to actually "do" anything in the game. At least anything observable. Didn't they attack the player at some point? I seem to remember being on the Aurora a long time ago and having to bring the repulser rife with me to send them into the water. Maybe that wasn't shuttlebugs...
It has been a while since I played and while I did just start again, I cannot get very far. I play with the Oculus Rift and we (VR users) are currently suffering from being unable to enter or exit our base, the Seamoth, PRAWN, or the Cyclops (PRAWN and Cyclops are speculated, as anything that has an animation attached to it, like entering or exiting, is broken).
Maybe I'm just not remembering things right, which would be awesome since taking a break was designed to let the game evolve and let it be new to me again, right before the 1.0 release.