Here's a good idea for the FPS genre:

[OliverTwist72]

It works in Stalker because taht game is about stealth. Most FPS (especially multiplayer ones) nowadays are about action. If I have to spend 10-15 seconds bandaging myself after everytime I get shot in a deathmatch online, I'm gonna get pretty bored (or else I'm just not gonna bandage and die more and ragequit).

 

[Trivun]

You know what? I'm happy with the status quo. I don't want realism in health systems.

I second this, unless it actually works.

I mean i really can't see Master Chief applying a Bandage...

To be fair, I prefer the idea that the Halo books suggest, and applying that to the games. When someone gets wounded in the books there's a thing called 'biofoam' which is basically a porous expanding foam that you spray into a deep wound, and it keeps your insides and blood from spilling out while buying you time to get to a proper medic. I prefer to imagine, therefore, that in the games when you take damage, you simply crack open a can of biofoam whenever you reach a 'first aid kit' in the map. That makes sense in the game universe, is realistic enough to keep people like me happy, and makes for a decent gameplay system to boot. I mean, come on, it is a good idea, really. Regenerating to a point (with the shields) then perma-damage after the shields are gone. Keeps the game difficult without being too difficult, and you get realism that makes sense to boot.

They used it in ODST, think it was Romeo that got hurt, but for characters like the Cheif, it's practically impossible because of his armour.

Apologies if this sounds a bit overly excessive and fanboyish, but actually that also gets explained in the books. The MJOLNIR armour is made up of seperate components that are linked by vacuum seals of some sort, which allow the wearer to be able to survive in a compromised environment with very low pressure (for example, space). However, these seals are weak themselves and can be easily damaged. They're hard to hit, but when the shields are broken they can often become a liability. It results in the death of at least one Spartan-II in a space op, and also int he book based on the original game, a Flood spore uses the neck seal as a way to reach the Chief's neck and try to infect him. It only fails because of Cortana using the armour's shield system to deliver an electric shock to the spore.

Not to mention, the armour is pretty strong, but not invulnerable, and indeed is as susceptible to damage as any other Marine or ODST armour. And it certainly isn't invulnerable to plasma damage, as plasma burns are often stated in-universe to be much more severe and damaging than normal burns...

 

[Buizel91]

You know what? I'm happy with the status quo. I don't want realism in health systems.

I second this, unless it actually works.

I mean i really can't see Master Chief applying a Bandage...

To be fair, I prefer the idea that the Halo books suggest, and applying that to the games. When someone gets wounded in the books there's a thing called 'biofoam' which is basically a porous expanding foam that you spray into a deep wound, and it keeps your insides and blood from spilling out while buying you time to get to a proper medic. I prefer to imagine, therefore, that in the games when you take damage, you simply crack open a can of biofoam whenever you reach a 'first aid kit' in the map. That makes sense in the game universe, is realistic enough to keep people like me happy, and makes for a decent gameplay system to boot. I mean, come on, it is a good idea, really. Regenerating to a point (with the shields) then perma-damage after the shields are gone. Keeps the game difficult without being too difficult, and you get realism that makes sense to boot.

They used it in ODST, think it was Romeo that got hurt, but for characters like the Cheif, it's practically impossible because of his armour.

Apologies if this sounds a bit overly excessive and fanboyish, but actually that also gets explained in the books. The MJOLNIR armour is made up of seperate components that are linked by vacuum seals of some sort, which allow the wearer to be able to survive in a compromised environment with very low pressure (for example, space). However, these seals are weak themselves and can be easily damaged. They're hard to hit, but when the shields are broken they can often become a liability. It results in the death of at least one Spartan-II in a space op, and also int he book based on the original game, a Flood spore uses the neck seal as a way to reach the Chief's neck and try to infect him. It only fails because of Cortana using the armour's shield system to deliver an electric shock to the spore.

Not to mention, the armour is pretty strong, but not invulnerable, and indeed is as susceptible to damage as any other Marine or ODST armour. And it certainly isn't invulnerable to plasma damage, as plasma burns are often stated in-universe to be much more severe and damaging than normal burns...

But implementing that into a game would extremely hard, fair enough if in the books, all this happened, but it would of made the games extremely complicated, especially if this is the first time someone had been in contact with anything Halo.

Still, learn something new everyday XD

 

[Gahars]

I don't really have a problem with regenerating health or health packs. They work well, which is why they've become so popular.

As for the STALKER idea, it probably isn't used because of how much complication it would add to the game. Realistic sim elements can be great, but in much faster paced/less focused on reality games, it would serve to just slow them down.

 

[DaHero]

I don't really have a problem with regenerating health or health packs. They work well, which is why they've become so popular.

As for the STALKER idea, it probably isn't used because of how much complication it would add to the game. Realistic sim elements can be great, but in much faster paced/less focused on reality games, it would serve to just slow them down.

I'm not saying everything should change, I'm saying someone needs to come out and make a multiplayer dedicated version of stalker. I would be fine with the CoD weapon setup system (unlock gun per level) but with the stealth teamwork style of gameplay. I'm just getting sick of the brown and gray run and gun FPS games that are flooding the market worse than Madden titles.

 

[spartan231490]

How about instead of a health bar, or regenerative health, there be an actual damage system?

I just recently finished STALKER: Call of Pripyat for the 3rd time when it hit me, why isn't the health system in STALKER ever thought about?

Hear me out, when a person takes damage on STALKER they take a little initial damage and then begin to bleed. More bullets increase the bleeding effect. The only way to stop the bleeding (effectively) is to apply a bandage. Even after using the bandage the blood loss/HP loss is still there, which could regenerate similar to Call of Duty if a compromise HAD to be met.

Theoretically this would do away with a lot of the problems being faced on FPS games to date. Games would stop becoming who can twitch shoot the best and would be more focused towards who can shoot without being shot (I think we can all agree THAT would take skill). This could also make sniping much more balanced as the bullet could still do high damage but the bleeding rate would be lower, meaning snipers would have to actually snipe...from a distance...like an actual sniper. Also, like STALKER, body armor reduces impact negation but once the bleeding starts there is trouble. I think the closest analogy would be in RPGs with the poison Damage Over Time systems, particularly found in (never going to believe this) Two Worlds. The DOT stacks with every hit so without attention the character is going to die. Maybe this would tone down on the rushing run and gun bile being spewed out across FPS games these days.

Oh, if this is ever used in a game, I'm not suing because this isn't originally my idea. (talking to James and all them from Extra Credits)

I've thought about it, and i think it's a horrible idea. It would really slow the game down, and turn it into a camp fest. Problem with a camp fest is that if both teams camp, nobody sees anyone else. I like the fast paced twitchiness of most FPS's today, which take just as much skill as what your suggesting, just a different kind of skill. In any multiplayer game, it's a competition of skill+ability, against skill and a ability. What I'm saying is that it's all relative, you just have to better than the other person, not better than a certain absolute level of skill. Nothing you add to a multiplayer is going to make it require more skill, except for adding more skilled players.

 

[spartan231490]

How about instead of a health bar, or regenerative health, there be an actual damage system?

I just recently finished STALKER: Call of Pripyat for the 3rd time when it hit me, why isn't the health system in STALKER ever thought about?

Hear me out, when a person takes damage on STALKER they take a little initial damage and then begin to bleed. More bullets increase the bleeding effect. The only way to stop the bleeding (effectively) is to apply a bandage. Even after using the bandage the blood loss/HP loss is still there, which could regenerate similar to Call of Duty if a compromise HAD to be met.

Theoretically this would do away with a lot of the problems being faced on FPS games to date. Games would stop becoming who can twitch shoot the best and would be more focused towards who can shoot without being shot (I think we can all agree THAT would take skill). This could also make sniping much more balanced as the bullet could still do high damage but the bleeding rate would be lower, meaning snipers would have to actually snipe...from a distance...like an actual sniper. Also, like STALKER, body armor reduces impact negation but once the bleeding starts there is trouble. I think the closest analogy would be in RPGs with the poison Damage Over Time systems, particularly found in (never going to believe this) Two Worlds. The DOT stacks with every hit so without attention the character is going to die. Maybe this would tone down on the rushing run and gun bile being spewed out across FPS games these days.

Oh, if this is ever used in a game, I'm not suing because this isn't originally my idea. (talking to James and all them from Extra Credits)

I've thought about it, and I think it's a horrible idea. It would really slow the game down, and turn it into a camp fest. Problem with a camp fest is that if both teams camp, nobody sees anyone else. I like the fast paced twitchiness of most FPS's today, which take just as much skill as what your suggesting, just a different kind of skill. In any multiplayer game, it's a competition of skill+ability, against skill and a ability. What I'm saying is that it's all relative, you just have to better than the other person, not better than a certain absolute level of skill. Nothing you add to a multiplayer is going to make it require more skill, except for adding more skilled players.

Hate to break it to you, but he didn't say anything about multiplayer. Have you even heard of singleplayer? It's the standard in any game worth playing.

The FPS genre today is defined by it's multiplayer, deny it if you wan't, but it's true.
Also, how is any single player FPS game a contest in twitchiness? it's not, it's about the skill to pick your targets according to threat, control the field of battle to avoid flanking, and to find bits of cover for a crucial breather long enough to reload, and maybe even regain a hit point or two.
As far as single player is concerned this idea isn't any better, in my opinion. The whole concept behind almost all FPS/RPG/Action games is one succeeding over many. This becomes dramatically more difficult when health regen between combats is so severely limited. It becomes more difficult even if you only limit health regen in mid combat, it would limit developers in how many opponents they can include in each "room," and limit players because they have one less tool at their disposal to approach and solve the problem.
Also, the insane popularity of the FPS genre is a pretty good indicator that they are at least in the right ballpark. It's a horrible idea to completely change the base mechanics in this way, unless your sure that the change is wanted by the players(potential and current). I think a change like this would get many people interested in the genre who aren't, but I think the vast majority of the current fans would stick with older titles. Enough so that any FPS that did this would fail miserably.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Games would stop becoming who can twitch shoot the best and would be more focused towards who can shoot without being shot (I think we can all agree THAT would take skill). )

derp?

Hooray for camping!

Camping is an Arcade FPS term. If someone is actually using their head and thinking they should be able to spot trouble spots and use smoke grenades or flashbangs.

I know, I know, I should probably just start learning to make my own FPS game, but I don't think it would take off since I'm apparent;y the only one that likes my system of gameplay. =/

I don't know why anyone hasn't said this earlier, but being able to ping someone without taking a bullet does NOT equal camping. It means being able to outsmart, outmaneuver, ambush or otherwise get a drop on your opponent, and yes it also has to do with reflexes. Even since Counter-strike you could easily set up an ambush by listening to someone's footsteps. And no, that isn't camping, it's actually what people are more likely to do in a firefight instead of the heroic moves that bely fast-paced FPS's

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Sorry, to get back OT:
I agree a lot with the people who shared views on the locale-based damage system, it could be very interesting tactics-wise if someone ever tried to play with it, taking someone's legs out, or whatever. But I think it would be even more interesting if it took into consideration bullet caliber (type of ammunition would be a kind of far stretch). For example, a 9mm could have a lesser effect on the able to limp status effect, but a .45 would put you into shock and hit the ground very quickly.

Oh yeah, I loved Far Cry 2's badass plier work and self bullet removal too, that was insane.

 

[spartan231490]

How about instead of a health bar, or regenerative health, there be an actual damage system?

I just recently finished STALKER: Call of Pripyat for the 3rd time when it hit me, why isn't the health system in STALKER ever thought about?

Hear me out, when a person takes damage on STALKER they take a little initial damage and then begin to bleed. More bullets increase the bleeding effect. The only way to stop the bleeding (effectively) is to apply a bandage. Even after using the bandage the blood loss/HP loss is still there, which could regenerate similar to Call of Duty if a compromise HAD to be met.

Theoretically this would do away with a lot of the problems being faced on FPS games to date. Games would stop becoming who can twitch shoot the best and would be more focused towards who can shoot without being shot (I think we can all agree THAT would take skill). This could also make sniping much more balanced as the bullet could still do high damage but the bleeding rate would be lower, meaning snipers would have to actually snipe...from a distance...like an actual sniper. Also, like STALKER, body armor reduces impact negation but once the bleeding starts there is trouble. I think the closest analogy would be in RPGs with the poison Damage Over Time systems, particularly found in (never going to believe this) Two Worlds. The DOT stacks with every hit so without attention the character is going to die. Maybe this would tone down on the rushing run and gun bile being spewed out across FPS games these days.

Oh, if this is ever used in a game, I'm not suing because this isn't originally my idea. (talking to James and all them from Extra Credits)

I've thought about it, and I think it's a horrible idea. It would really slow the game down, and turn it into a camp fest. Problem with a camp fest is that if both teams camp, nobody sees anyone else. I like the fast paced twitchiness of most FPS's today, which take just as much skill as what your suggesting, just a different kind of skill. In any multiplayer game, it's a competition of skill+ability, against skill and a ability. What I'm saying is that it's all relative, you just have to better than the other person, not better than a certain absolute level of skill. Nothing you add to a multiplayer is going to make it require more skill, except for adding more skilled players.

Hate to break it to you, but he didn't say anything about multiplayer. Have you even heard of singleplayer? It's the standard in any game worth playing.

The FPS genre today is defined by it's multiplayer, deny it if you wan't, but it's true.
Also, how is any single player FPS game a contest in twitchiness? it's not, it's about the skill to pick your targets according to threat, control the field of battle to avoid flanking, and to find bits of cover for a crucial breather long enough to reload, and maybe even regain a hit point or two.
As far as single player is concerned this idea isn't any better, in my opinion. The whole concept behind almost all FPS/RPG/Action games is one succeeding over many. This becomes dramatically more difficult when health regen between combats is so severely limited. It becomes more difficult even if you only limit health regen in mid combat, it would limit developers in how many opponents they can include in each "room," and limit players because they have one less tool at their disposal to approach and solve the problem.
Also, the insane popularity of the FPS genre is a pretty good indicator that they are at least in the right ballpark. It's a horrible idea to completely change the base mechanics in this way, unless your sure that the change is wanted by the players(potential and current). I think a change like this would get many people interested in the genre who aren't, but I think the vast majority of the current fans would stick with older titles. Enough so that any FPS that did this would fail miserably.

I like how you claim the genre is defined by the inferior iteration, and then explain how the other one is superior, all in the first 3 sentences.

I prefer to test my skill against the dynamic abilities of multiple other people, not preset encounters run by AI which will never be as smart and creative as a person.

 

[spartan231490]

How about instead of a health bar, or regenerative health, there be an actual damage system?

I just recently finished STALKER: Call of Pripyat for the 3rd time when it hit me, why isn't the health system in STALKER ever thought about?

Hear me out, when a person takes damage on STALKER they take a little initial damage and then begin to bleed. More bullets increase the bleeding effect. The only way to stop the bleeding (effectively) is to apply a bandage. Even after using the bandage the blood loss/HP loss is still there, which could regenerate similar to Call of Duty if a compromise HAD to be met.

Theoretically this would do away with a lot of the problems being faced on FPS games to date. Games would stop becoming who can twitch shoot the best and would be more focused towards who can shoot without being shot (I think we can all agree THAT would take skill). This could also make sniping much more balanced as the bullet could still do high damage but the bleeding rate would be lower, meaning snipers would have to actually snipe...from a distance...like an actual sniper. Also, like STALKER, body armor reduces impact negation but once the bleeding starts there is trouble. I think the closest analogy would be in RPGs with the poison Damage Over Time systems, particularly found in (never going to believe this) Two Worlds. The DOT stacks with every hit so without attention the character is going to die. Maybe this would tone down on the rushing run and gun bile being spewed out across FPS games these days.

Oh, if this is ever used in a game, I'm not suing because this isn't originally my idea. (talking to James and all them from Extra Credits)

I've thought about it, and I think it's a horrible idea. It would really slow the game down, and turn it into a camp fest. Problem with a camp fest is that if both teams camp, nobody sees anyone else. I like the fast paced twitchiness of most FPS's today, which take just as much skill as what your suggesting, just a different kind of skill. In any multiplayer game, it's a competition of skill+ability, against skill and a ability. What I'm saying is that it's all relative, you just have to better than the other person, not better than a certain absolute level of skill. Nothing you add to a multiplayer is going to make it require more skill, except for adding more skilled players.

Hate to break it to you, but he didn't say anything about multiplayer. Have you even heard of singleplayer? It's the standard in any game worth playing.

The FPS genre today is defined by it's multiplayer, deny it if you wan't, but it's true.
Also, how is any single player FPS game a contest in twitchiness? it's not, it's about the skill to pick your targets according to threat, control the field of battle to avoid flanking, and to find bits of cover for a crucial breather long enough to reload, and maybe even regain a hit point or two.
As far as single player is concerned this idea isn't any better, in my opinion. The whole concept behind almost all FPS/RPG/Action games is one succeeding over many. This becomes dramatically more difficult when health regen between combats is so severely limited. It becomes more difficult even if you only limit health regen in mid combat, it would limit developers in how many opponents they can include in each "room," and limit players because they have one less tool at their disposal to approach and solve the problem.
Also, the insane popularity of the FPS genre is a pretty good indicator that they are at least in the right ballpark. It's a horrible idea to completely change the base mechanics in this way, unless your sure that the change is wanted by the players(potential and current). I think a change like this would get many people interested in the genre who aren't, but I think the vast majority of the current fans would stick with older titles. Enough so that any FPS that did this would fail miserably.

I like how you claim the genre is defined by the inferior iteration, and then explain how the other one is superior, all in the first 3 sentences.

I prefer to test my skill against the dynamic abilities of multiple other people, not preset encounters run by AI which will never be as smart and creative as a person.

That argument might work if you're talking about online PC games or something. But I pity your ignorance if you're talking about the "verbal equivalent of sewers with toilets on the inside" Xbox Live.

I'm calling online console gamers retarded, is my point.

Considering the number of university students who play console multiplayer, your "argument" holds no water. Add in to this, the fact than any one of those "sewers with toilets on the inside" would still better strategize towards completing an objective than a set of halo marines, or elites, or any video game ally or enemy that has ever been created, truly shows how valid my point still is.
I should have gone with my gut and quit talking to you back after my first post. It appears that I have spent all this time feeding a troll.

 

[DaHero]

How about instead of a health bar, or regenerative health, there be an actual damage system?

I just recently finished STALKER: Call of Pripyat for the 3rd time when it hit me, why isn't the health system in STALKER ever thought about?

Hear me out, when a person takes damage on STALKER they take a little initial damage and then begin to bleed. More bullets increase the bleeding effect. The only way to stop the bleeding (effectively) is to apply a bandage. Even after using the bandage the blood loss/HP loss is still there, which could regenerate similar to Call of Duty if a compromise HAD to be met.

Theoretically this would do away with a lot of the problems being faced on FPS games to date. Games would stop becoming who can twitch shoot the best and would be more focused towards who can shoot without being shot (I think we can all agree THAT would take skill). This could also make sniping much more balanced as the bullet could still do high damage but the bleeding rate would be lower, meaning snipers would have to actually snipe...from a distance...like an actual sniper. Also, like STALKER, body armor reduces impact negation but once the bleeding starts there is trouble. I think the closest analogy would be in RPGs with the poison Damage Over Time systems, particularly found in (never going to believe this) Two Worlds. The DOT stacks with every hit so without attention the character is going to die. Maybe this would tone down on the rushing run and gun bile being spewed out across FPS games these days.

Oh, if this is ever used in a game, I'm not suing because this isn't originally my idea. (talking to James and all them from Extra Credits)

I've thought about it, and I think it's a horrible idea. It would really slow the game down, and turn it into a camp fest. Problem with a camp fest is that if both teams camp, nobody sees anyone else. I like the fast paced twitchiness of most FPS's today, which take just as much skill as what your suggesting, just a different kind of skill. In any multiplayer game, it's a competition of skill+ability, against skill and a ability. What I'm saying is that it's all relative, you just have to better than the other person, not better than a certain absolute level of skill. Nothing you add to a multiplayer is going to make it require more skill, except for adding more skilled players.

Hate to break it to you, but he didn't say anything about multiplayer. Have you even heard of singleplayer? It's the standard in any game worth playing.

The FPS genre today is defined by it's multiplayer, deny it if you wan't, but it's true.
Also, how is any single player FPS game a contest in twitchiness? it's not, it's about the skill to pick your targets according to threat, control the field of battle to avoid flanking, and to find bits of cover for a crucial breather long enough to reload, and maybe even regain a hit point or two.
As far as single player is concerned this idea isn't any better, in my opinion. The whole concept behind almost all FPS/RPG/Action games is one succeeding over many. This becomes dramatically more difficult when health regen between combats is so severely limited. It becomes more difficult even if you only limit health regen in mid combat, it would limit developers in how many opponents they can include in each "room," and limit players because they have one less tool at their disposal to approach and solve the problem.
Also, the insane popularity of the FPS genre is a pretty good indicator that they are at least in the right ballpark. It's a horrible idea to completely change the base mechanics in this way, unless your sure that the change is wanted by the players(potential and current). I think a change like this would get many people interested in the genre who aren't, but I think the vast majority of the current fans would stick with older titles. Enough so that any FPS that did this would fail miserably.

I like how you claim the genre is defined by the inferior iteration, and then explain how the other one is superior, all in the first 3 sentences.

I prefer to test my skill against the dynamic abilities of multiple other people, not preset encounters run by AI which will never be as smart and creative as a person.

That argument might work if you're talking about online PC games or something. But I pity your ignorance if you're talking about the "verbal equivalent of sewers with toilets on the inside" Xbox Live.

I'm calling online console gamers retarded, is my point.

Considering the number of university students who play console multiplayer, your "argument" holds no water. Add in to this, the fact than any one of those "sewers with toilets on the inside" would still better strategize towards completing an objective than a set of halo marines, or elites, or any video game ally or enemy that has ever been created, truly shows how valid my point still is.
I should have gone with my gut and quit talking to you back after my first post. It appears that I have spent all this time feeding a troll.

Education is completely irrelevant to online behavior and you should be ashamed to defend those word-vommiters. I'm sure that Wikileaks fellow was well-educated, considering he was in the military, and yet he got himself in legal trouble with that military because he is stupid. You know who else are university students? Frat-boys/drinking buddies/party animals. You know, the kind of people who waste their high I.Q. the same way a rich teens waste money. Since when is trolling defined as speaking what one believes to be the truth? I would only be a troll if I believed otherwise.

You know...I get this really solid feeling that we could become really good acquaintances...possibly friends.

Back on topic: There are no tactics in a twitch based acradey game like CoD, nor are tactics SUPPOSED to exist in such a game. The CoD franchise is supposed to be about joining a random match, using the cheapest method possible, raging, screaming, cussing...and that's OKAY! All the "sewers with toilets on the inside" aw heck...let's just call them E-peens...only play these arcade FPS games based solely around mindless running and gunning. Fact: You will NEVER find an E-peen spamming up the World Golf Tour game about it being too hard. They prefer instead to just write it off as an "old mans game" and walk away. What I'm looking for is a good tactical FPS that takes patience, intelligence, and common sense. Unfortunately I fear that hardly anyone will use their head unless forced to, which is why the logical conclusion is to force them to, or die.

 

[IronicBeet]

As long as it can be toggled, I like this idea.

 

[Twilight_guy]

That's nice. Of course it's just an old school Health system with a timer to lose health over time stuck on it. It's not innovative so much as different and doesn't seem particularly conducive to playing. If even a single shot is going to ruin my day then I'm going to spend more time holding position and cowering and staying near some form of aid to keep bleeding down. That encourages slow progression and stalemate in multiplayer, which is bad.

 

[dragonburner]

There are sim games and there are arcade games. Depending on how you like your shooters you may or may not be happy that arcade shooters posing as realistic shooters are ruling the roost.

Call of Duty, Battlefield, Crysis, Homefront, and Killzone are GRITTY and HARDCORE arcade shooters.

Duke Nukem', Bulletstorm, and Halo are "arcade-arcade" shooters- although Halo is the odd one out... Somewhere in between.

Sim shooters are... somwhere. Operation Flashpoint, ARMA, etc. are a niche genre right now. Sometimes a sim-like shooter will release and have flaws that bog it down. Hell the premise is a realistic shooter, but a lot of the time there are arcade elements to appeal to a larger audience.