In games like Halo or GoW with their cartoonish levels of violence it works fine. However in supposedly "gritty" war games like CoD or MoH then some sort of health system should be introduced.
Poll: Health Bar or Regenerating Health, what is your stance on this new trend?
- Thread starter ElArabDeMagnifico
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on how fast you die: If you die in 3-4 shots like the harder settings of COD games then HP re-gen is fine. If you take a lot of punishment before you go down, then HP bars are better.
I hate GoW multiplayer precisely because it combines High HP with Cover System with HP re-gen: People don't die very quickly, then jump behind cover, essentially you have to one-shot them
I hate GoW multiplayer precisely because it combines High HP with Cover System with HP re-gen: People don't die very quickly, then jump behind cover, essentially you have to one-shot them
That's assuming that the total amounts of health with each system are comparable. Besides, if you're playing against a human opponent in a game like Halo 3, he has the same regenerating ability you have.Manbro said:
in my opinion the general advantage of regenerating health is that it does allow the designer to throw a lot more enemies at you, and produce many challenging situations that can all individually kill you, as they know after each segment, you'll be back to full health. So in that respect it does allow more flexibility i suppose, however in games like half life the challenge is having to get to each area with enough health to survive, which is also good, so yeah, a balance between the two.
Honestly, my favorite health system was in Star Wars: Republic Commando, where you had both regenerating shields and a health bar (like in the first Halo), but instead of picking up health packs, you had to go to bacta stations and wait as they healed you.
Your post does not make a lot of sense so I dont except my answer to make a lot of sense either.Fraught said:
You said the two games.. Which two games were you referring again? If you meant games in general, yes I have played quite a lot of them. When I said Call of Duty 2007 I was referring to the series (and many similiar to it) becoming just like Fifa or NHL series with yearly (graphics) updates just to make more dough out of masses (gee I even explained that in my initial post).
The "Mr. I-am-soo-extreme" part was aimed at hilarious people who dont realize that most FPS shooters are as extreme as Windows Vista.
And no I cant complete CoD 4 on Veteran. I cant be bothered to "trial & error" tons of scripted events for some absurd achievement. I would rather do something more constructive like playing Tetris for hours.
I really liked the health bar in Far Cry 2.When you were really close to dieing, you'd bite the bullet and pull it our with your teeth, and then stab your self with a morphine syringe. If they could combine that with the Fallout 3 Area damage, and the MGS3 surgery window, that would be awesome.
Call of Duty 2007 was made for the stupid masses full of dough who want nothing more than slightly updated sequel of a ghost train instead of a new and innovative gameplay.Dele said:
That pretty much says you think that Call of Duty 4 wasn't an improvement in gameplay over the previous installments in the series. Geddit?
And was Call of Duty: World at War only a graphical update from CoD4?
No, it was drastically changed.
First and foremost, the WW2 scenery, and the likes of, let's say, Zombie Nazi mode.
It wasn't a graphical update, if you know what I mean.
And "Ghillies in the Mist" was, atleast for me, the best, most exciting, most enthralling, engrossing and tense mission in any FPS ever, maybe even in any game. Period.
Now, if we talk about the topic of the thread, then yes, they both have the same *breathing, breathing* I'm dying! kinda way when you're on the verge of death, only to plunge into battle a few second later, but what is to argue here?
In games, it's a good thing.
Yes I do think that CoD 4 had only minor changes and somehow you dont even try to convince me. Little change of scenery is a good definition of a graphical update. If we changed grass into red sand and changed the name of the game to "Call of Duty: Mars at War" would the game be dramatically different? Only if you wanted to feel that way.Fraught said:
Look I know games get kinda messy when you attach emotions to them and it might take several sequels to see that theyre selling the same thing to you in different wrappings. It's an unlimited bag of gold. Many people buy sequels to feel the good feeling they had when they played the orginal game all over again and this is where most companies start milking the cow. Instead of actively trying to implement new things and innovations they tend to stick with the 'winning formula. When are you going to get tired of CoD? Will it be around CoD 7 or CoD 10? They will update the graphics as long as it sells and oh boy will it sell just like other casual games...
I love Far Cry 2's system of healing. You have a health bar divided in 5 segments (at least in Normal difficulty) if you have, say, 2-and-half-of-the-third segments, you'll regenerate until you fill up the 3rd segment. A quick shot of morphine will send you back up to max.
Now, if you're really messed up (that is to say, on your last bar of health) you need to perform a much longer healing animation involving the character pulling out a bullet from his body, or fixing a broken elbow, etc. If you perform this self-surgery, your health will be 2 segments full.
Now, if you're really messed up (that is to say, on your last bar of health) you need to perform a much longer healing animation involving the character pulling out a bullet from his body, or fixing a broken elbow, etc. If you perform this self-surgery, your health will be 2 segments full.