I wish the gaming industry would get rid of regenerating health but..........
- Thread starter rdaleric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I couldn't bear to read through all three pages fully, so forgive me if I sound like I'm repeating someone else.
Firstly, I don't think any health system is going to work well in terms of immersion in a game. Sure, regenerating health doesn't make sense, but if you're shot in the leg a few times, some health pack isn't going to just make everything better. It probably wouldn't be bleeding any more, but that doesn't mean you're at 100% health. Fans of health-pack systems insist "with regen systems you can take 1000 shots to the head, as long as you sit back behind cover in between each one!" Well, the same is true for health packs, as long as you have enough - that's not realistic either.
In fact, people wanting an extremely realistic health system would have to have characters losing health (i.e. while they're bleeding) until they find a kit to stop losing it, not replenish it.
Even the idea of different body parts taking damage only works to a certain extent, because it will never be specific enough. Not everywhere I get shot in the head will affect my vision - what if my ear gets grazed or shot off? Then the volume should be changed. And getting shot in the shoulder, for example, would have a very different effect from getting shot in the trigger finger.
My favorite health system is the regen one because it allows proper pacing. If you get into so much trouble that you take a bunch of damage at the same time, you die. And hunting for health packs stinks.
Firstly, I don't think any health system is going to work well in terms of immersion in a game. Sure, regenerating health doesn't make sense, but if you're shot in the leg a few times, some health pack isn't going to just make everything better. It probably wouldn't be bleeding any more, but that doesn't mean you're at 100% health. Fans of health-pack systems insist "with regen systems you can take 1000 shots to the head, as long as you sit back behind cover in between each one!" Well, the same is true for health packs, as long as you have enough - that's not realistic either.
In fact, people wanting an extremely realistic health system would have to have characters losing health (i.e. while they're bleeding) until they find a kit to stop losing it, not replenish it.
Even the idea of different body parts taking damage only works to a certain extent, because it will never be specific enough. Not everywhere I get shot in the head will affect my vision - what if my ear gets grazed or shot off? Then the volume should be changed. And getting shot in the shoulder, for example, would have a very different effect from getting shot in the trigger finger.
My favorite health system is the regen one because it allows proper pacing. If you get into so much trouble that you take a bunch of damage at the same time, you die. And hunting for health packs stinks.
I've never understood why people hated regenerating health so much.
Seriously people, what's wrong with you?
And it may be unrealistic, and unlike anything in real-life, but it's a freakin' videogame.
I, for example, am not playing games to simulate life.
I could just go out to live a life, but I'm playing games to have fun, and generally arcade'sh games are far more fun than simulators.
One game I can think of from the top of my head is Pure.
Seriously people, what's wrong with you?
And it may be unrealistic, and unlike anything in real-life, but it's a freakin' videogame.
I, for example, am not playing games to simulate life.
I could just go out to live a life, but I'm playing games to have fun, and generally arcade'sh games are far more fun than simulators.
One game I can think of from the top of my head is Pure.
Rather than getting good at the style of game and using your brains to keep them in your skull, I take it. I liked the old health bar system. It let you know exactly how good you were doing. If you couldn't make it to the next health pick up, you were doing rather poorly.fullmetalangel said:
And if you still think that regenerating health is so great, pick up Contra and try a game with NO health. How fun would it have been if you could have just sat around and let your character regenerate?
Here's an idea:
You have a regenerating energy shield that can a fair amount of punishment.
Underneath that you have a non-regenerating suit of armor. This take more damage then the shield, but needs you to find kits to repair it, which takes time and forces you to sit down defenseless for a short while repairing.
Underneath that you have your health meter. Depending on the condition of your armor, your health bar takes more or less damage. When you are shot, your health will slowly bleed out, requiring you to stop the bleeding. First, you can apply a bandage that would quickly stop the bleeding. Above that would be the future-heal item, which will stop the bleed out and regenerate your health for a short period of time. Note that if you've already stopped the bleed-out with a bandage, you'll recover more than if you didn't. Also, if you are wounded again while this thing is working, it will stop healing you but also keep you for bleeding out for the rest of it's activity or short period of time, which ever is shorter. More damage sustained will keep you from regenerating longer.
Lastly, you'd have a med kit, which would stop your bleeding, heal you up a large portion of your health, and depending on the quality of the medkit, may regenerate you some health over time/counter-act bleed-out.
Also, after stopping the bleed-out, you'll eventually regenerate a small amount of health that was 'bled' out. You can, infact, recover all of it, except it would take a long time to do so. Taking bullet damage would reduce the amount of overall health you have, whereas the bleed-out health would only count temporarily.
You have a regenerating energy shield that can a fair amount of punishment.
Underneath that you have a non-regenerating suit of armor. This take more damage then the shield, but needs you to find kits to repair it, which takes time and forces you to sit down defenseless for a short while repairing.
Underneath that you have your health meter. Depending on the condition of your armor, your health bar takes more or less damage. When you are shot, your health will slowly bleed out, requiring you to stop the bleeding. First, you can apply a bandage that would quickly stop the bleeding. Above that would be the future-heal item, which will stop the bleed out and regenerate your health for a short period of time. Note that if you've already stopped the bleed-out with a bandage, you'll recover more than if you didn't. Also, if you are wounded again while this thing is working, it will stop healing you but also keep you for bleeding out for the rest of it's activity or short period of time, which ever is shorter. More damage sustained will keep you from regenerating longer.
Lastly, you'd have a med kit, which would stop your bleeding, heal you up a large portion of your health, and depending on the quality of the medkit, may regenerate you some health over time/counter-act bleed-out.
Also, after stopping the bleed-out, you'll eventually regenerate a small amount of health that was 'bled' out. You can, infact, recover all of it, except it would take a long time to do so. Taking bullet damage would reduce the amount of overall health you have, whereas the bleed-out health would only count temporarily.
You have to understand the gaming principles the two dominate health systems imply (i.e. regenerating and non regenerating). In the old days, before players were able to magically mend clothing, knit shut sucking chest wounds, reset broken limbs and regain their blood supply simply by not getting shot for a bit, players were magically able to mend clothing, knit shut chest wounds etc by walking on top of a first aid kit. In those days, the supply of health went along with the supplies of ammunition as a key element of pacing and a part of the risk/reward system. Looking at games like quake 3 you find that in the ubiquitous DM_17, health and weapons are placed with a keen eye regarding this very system. Getting the mega health required being in the center of the map and spending several agonizing seconds in the air leaving you an easy target getting out with a net gain in health was difficult against a single player much less several. The railgun is placed on a platform and the only way to access it is via a jump pad, again leaving the player incredibly vulnerable (being shot in the back as you fly tends to make you fly off the edge). By forcing players to manage their health as a resource along with weapons and ammunition, confrontations become a sort of risk management scenario where you attempt to complete an encounter with a maximum amount of total resources left at the end. In the best scenario, where difficulty and pacing nearly perfectly match a player's skill the player stumbles upon health moments before they collapse and find fresh supplies of ammunition just as their weapons run dry.
With regenerating health, the focus shifts from the long term survival of the player to the short term, in the moment scenarios. Every encounter can push a player to the brink of death, which can often lead to moments of incredible fun. Notably, these games also tend to have plentiful supplies of ammunition. Sure, you can run out of ammunition for your favored weapons in Halo or Call of Duty, but it is unlikely you'll be forced to truly resort to melee attacks as your only means of defense as there are dozens of weapons scattered about for your use. Resource management becomes inconsequential and the player is instead allowed (and in many cases forced) to give a maximum effort in order to succeed.
The two approaches lead to wildly different styles of game. Health regeneration generally does away with the notion of inherent vulnerability of your character, and is thus poorly suited to games attempting to instill fear in a player (survival horror, action/horror, etc.) yet works wonderfully in games where the action of the moment is the key. Non regeneration of health on the other hand means that a player's long term survival hinges on their ability to efficiently overcome a game's challenges, which fosters a more conservative and cautious mindset. Properly implemented either scenario can lead to a fun game. Call of Duty 4's fast paced multiplayer would be tarnished if after every firefight you were forced to find health (and unless you dramatically outclass your opposition, it's unlikely you can get through many firefights unscathed). On the other hand, health management is a key aspect of Team Fortress 2's class balance and interaction, and it's removal would make the medic obsolete and the engineer's utility would be greatly diminished.
With regenerating health, the focus shifts from the long term survival of the player to the short term, in the moment scenarios. Every encounter can push a player to the brink of death, which can often lead to moments of incredible fun. Notably, these games also tend to have plentiful supplies of ammunition. Sure, you can run out of ammunition for your favored weapons in Halo or Call of Duty, but it is unlikely you'll be forced to truly resort to melee attacks as your only means of defense as there are dozens of weapons scattered about for your use. Resource management becomes inconsequential and the player is instead allowed (and in many cases forced) to give a maximum effort in order to succeed.
The two approaches lead to wildly different styles of game. Health regeneration generally does away with the notion of inherent vulnerability of your character, and is thus poorly suited to games attempting to instill fear in a player (survival horror, action/horror, etc.) yet works wonderfully in games where the action of the moment is the key. Non regeneration of health on the other hand means that a player's long term survival hinges on their ability to efficiently overcome a game's challenges, which fosters a more conservative and cautious mindset. Properly implemented either scenario can lead to a fun game. Call of Duty 4's fast paced multiplayer would be tarnished if after every firefight you were forced to find health (and unless you dramatically outclass your opposition, it's unlikely you can get through many firefights unscathed). On the other hand, health management is a key aspect of Team Fortress 2's class balance and interaction, and it's removal would make the medic obsolete and the engineer's utility would be greatly diminished.
Yes: Realism is secondary to fun in anything except simulation. Do you really want to play a game where taking a single pistol round to a bullet proof vest knocks you on your back, and removes you from the game for several minutes as your character struggles to recover (just because you don't die doesn't mean damage isn't done)? Do you want to play a game where your character can trip while running because you didn't pay attention to his balance? Do you want to play a game where a bullet to the leg reduces you to a crawl or at best a slow limp? Some people may enjoy such systems because they are more interested in simulation as a route to fun but I suspect such people fall into a minority.Iori Branford said:
Arbitrary adherence to realism is a hallmark of video games, and often it's done for the sake of balance. In most games, the M-60 (or other 7.62mm machine guns) do less damage on a per bullet basis than a smaller caliber (say 5.56 NATO) assault rifle to balance out the larger ammunition capacity. In real life, that tiny difference in bullet size makes a HUGE difference in the damage potential of the round in any given scenario. People accept such things because it brings balance to the playing field. Attempting to apply realistic balance to the problem is difficulty. Machine guns are substantially heavier than assault rifles meaning the gunners are the least maneuverable people on the battlefield. The weapons are nearly impossible to fire with any real accuracy while standing (god forbid trying to walk and fire an M-60). The result is machine guns excel at laying down what's called a base of fire but fare poorly in situations that require high mobility. In a usual example during an assault the gunners are used to provide covering fire for an assaulting force that is much more lightly armed. In this scenario, the speed of the attackers is of greater importance than the firepower they wield. Implementing this into video games is difficult at best, and in some situations results in frustration (In Ghost Recon for the first several games attempting to balance the weapon meant that they were simply wildly inaccurate under general use)
I also don't like regeneration and the whole, "Wait for your friend heal you" thing, It is indeed realistic but when it comes to games Realism gets in the way of balance. There is the whole energy shield some games have going for, your first 200 of HP goes down then it takes away from the last 100, the last 100 cant be regenerated unless there is a medic around and the first 200 are of shield. That works well in my opinion, halo pulled it off really well. But when it comes to realism in games like Farcry or even CoD they should stick with the idea of health packs to some degree. finding one in a hospital could work... Best of it to make it even more realistic (if you are into that) Stats would come in play so the amount of energy you recover is argumented. Also tools found on the way, Lets say a friend dies take off a pice of his shirt and wrap it around your bleeding arm. Or steal his medic-packs he won't need them where he is going. That worked well in planetside.
Realism and games shouldn't be together in my opinion, Games are for good fun to be had outside of this shitty world, Games that go around reminding me that there is an oil crisis or that the economy is crap or good old terrorism, I don't seem to find fun. games are just for good old space bounty hunter blond chick shooting a huge brain on planet Zebers, also blowing it up at the end. Now that is fun to beheld.
Realism and games shouldn't be together in my opinion, Games are for good fun to be had outside of this shitty world, Games that go around reminding me that there is an oil crisis or that the economy is crap or good old terrorism, I don't seem to find fun. games are just for good old space bounty hunter blond chick shooting a huge brain on planet Zebers, also blowing it up at the end. Now that is fun to beheld.
You could have a health system where you only regenerate to a certain level based on how much you were injured. For example if you were hit by a car you would be knocked down. You could recover enough to run but would have a permanently busted leg for that level/section whatever.
Well realism would suck, git hit in the leg by a machine gun bullet, it shatters bone and ruins muscles. Get taken to hospital, two to three operations later, 6 months physio and you walk with a limp for the rest of your life.rdaleric said:
I personally perfer health bars in most games.
I think regen health fits a game like Mirror's Edge because you don't need to hide behind cover. It's more like "I made a mistake and I'm gonna keep going and I'll be fine."
I don't know what else you'd do. Making things more realistic is just more annoying most of the time.
I think regen health fits a game like Mirror's Edge because you don't need to hide behind cover. It's more like "I made a mistake and I'm gonna keep going and I'll be fine."
I don't know what else you'd do. Making things more realistic is just more annoying most of the time.
This statement bothers me. Referring to regenerating health as "the current system". I don't even have to ask if you're joking or not because what this means is that it's become synonymous with gaming now.fullmetalangel said:
I shouldn't be surprised. It seems people don't even think about it any more. Great. Now regenerating health is the new jumping puzzle. People aren't even thinking any more "Should we?", they just do it.
Any component in gameplay should be well thought out and balanced. It should fit and it must serve a purpose. You don't just do it because everyone else is doing it.
All of the above points are quite valid, and I agree that Resistance is a good compromise. However, I think it boils down to laziness, on both the developer and the gamers. First off the gamers are just too lazy these days to actually try and become good at at game or be challenged, thus not dying as much no matter what health system is presented. I think the developers are just trying to appease the players (and lets face it they pay the bills) and are just taking the easiest way out. There are ways to keep pacing and make a game feel action packed and epic, even with a health system. I thought COD 1 did a fantastic job of this, as did Max Payne and Deus X, all had great pacing, and you still cared when you got shot.
Unfortunetly, it seems that more and more gamers, just want to push through a game, and say that they did it. I myself find the new FPS's to be far too easy, simply because of the regenerating health.
I know a lot of you will not agree but whatever.
Unfortunetly, it seems that more and more gamers, just want to push through a game, and say that they did it. I myself find the new FPS's to be far too easy, simply because of the regenerating health.
I know a lot of you will not agree but whatever.
I always liked the Max Payne health system. You have a health bar, but once you get below 25% after you regen back to 25%. But you have to use Painkillers to get above 25%ish health.
BTW, I do believe Killzone 1 also used this very health system I'm talking about.
BTW, I do believe Killzone 1 also used this very health system I'm talking about.
I may be wrong about Far Cry 2, but isn't it the case that you have to attend to first aid immediately whilst rooted to the spot, under fire and unable to seek cover? I felt that Ubisoft nearly got this right, but they needed to do two things:johnman said:
1. Make it so that you could apply First Aid when you chose to (and thereby move to cover), but you couldn't sprint and would gradually slow down as you "put off your medical intervention". You wouldn't be able to fire your weapon or throw a grenade/molotov whilst injured, either.
2. They could then have elaborated the First Aid into more than just a button press. In fact, all of the "canned animations" that you have to repeatedly watch throughout the game (such as fixing the Jeep's engine...) could have been made more interesting by turning them into a kind of mini-game - e.g. look down at your body for the place you are injured, hold the Aim trigger (which zooms in on the wound as your weapon is temporarily unequipped when you are seriously injured) and then press one of the Face buttons corresponding to some First Aid operation.
For example: pressing (X) to wash the blood from your avatar's arm so you can see where the bullet went in, then (B) to do some field surgery on yourself, prying the bullet out with pliers, then (Y) to strike a clump of matches to cauterize the wound, then some more water (X) and finally an injection to prevent gangrene (A).
An FPS developer could take the L4D Healing Idea to the next level. Just imagine you get shot up, and then you need to pick up Medkits in order to start regenerating health. And then when you find one you have the 'sling strap wrapping' going on but in first person. And while you're wrapping your wounds you can really see where you're shot and bleeding coming out of the bullet holes.
I'd LOVE to see something like that.
I'd LOVE to see something like that.