Bionic Eyes not worth it? Darkness vs accuracy?

[Limdood]

The mechanic's prevalence is devoid of realism, so there must be some gameplay reasoning for it...

It is devoid of realism.  Realism would be 1 bullet = 1 dead pawn 50% of the time or more.  The game play reason is that losing a finger is FAR more fun than "my best shooter took a single wild bullet in the torso from an assault rifle, he's dead now"

[DariusWolfe]

The mechanic's prevalence is devoid of realism, so there must be some gameplay reasoning for it...

It is devoid of realism.  Realism would be 1 bullet = 1 dead pawn 50% of the time or more.  The game play reason is that losing a finger is FAR more fun than "my best shooter took a single wild bullet in the torso from an assault rifle, he's dead now"

While you're not wrong, you clipped the unimportant part of the statement, and barely addressed the other part. While losing a finger is more 'fun' than losing a whole pawn, it's still not fun; It's frustrating, and encourages even less fun playstyles; i.e. killboxing. Especially (lemme drag out my dead horse for a minute) given that neither death nor dismemberment have any particularly detrimental effects against the infinite aggressors, it's a strictly one-sided problem; Yes, those peg-legged eyeless luciferium-addicted pirates come back, but they're also typically accompanied by many more perfectly capable pawns, and will always be so, no matter how many you kill or dismember.

As each one of your pawns is generally a significant portion of your work- and combat force, so a lost finger or eye, or a death, is a big blow to you, and you're strongly encouraged to play more conservatively, because nothing you do will ever lessen the threat against you.

When darkness was a thing, it made using your pawns less of a risk, because you could set up darkened bunkers, and brightly lit killing fields. With darkness now completely ineffectual as a defensive technique, it's yet another argument in favor of expendable turrets and deadfall traps.

[Jorlem]

The mechanic's prevalence is devoid of realism, so there must be some gameplay reasoning for it...

It is devoid of realism.  Realism would be 1 bullet = 1 dead pawn 50% of the time or more.  The game play reason is that losing a finger is FAR more fun than "my best shooter took a single wild bullet in the torso from an assault rifle, he's dead now"

5%, not 50%, if one can make it to a hospital alive, and only about 20% of the targets on the body are fatal if hit.  Source

If a gunshot victim's heart is still beating upon arrival at a hospital, there is a 95 percent chance of survival, Dr. DiMaio said. (People shot in vital organs usually do not make it that far, he added.)

Shots to roughly 80 percent of targets on the body would not be fatal blows, Dr. Fackler said. Still, he added, it is like roulette.

So long as one doesn't get hit in the head or heart, and can get treatment in time, survival isn't unlikely.